Former Vietnam, Commercial Pilot Calls Official 9/11 Story Bunk

[pox americana]

Former Vietnam Combat and Commercial Pilot Firm Believer 9/11 Was Inside Government Job

By Greg Szymanski
Lewis (County, WA) News
Posted on: 7/17/2005

There was no fooling former Air Force and commercial pilot Russ Wittenberg the morning of 9/11. He knew it was an inside job from the get-go, knowing the ‘big boys’ were up to the same dirty tricks they played in the Kennedy assassination and Pearl Harbor. The government may have fooled millions of Americans with its cockamamie official story, but the former fighter pilot who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam and who sat for 35 years in the cockpit for Pan Am and United, wasn’t one of them.

<snip>

Knowing the flight characteristics of the “big birds” like the back of his hand, 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.”

Wittenberg claimed the high speed maneuver would have surely stalled the jetliner sending it into a nose dive, adding it was “totally impossible" for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna to maneuver the jetliner in such a highly professional manner, something Wittenberg said he couldn’t do with 35 years of commercial jetliner experience.

“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. “I had to be trained to use the new, computerized systems. I just couldn’t jump in and fly one,” he added.

link: http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=106623

[JackRiddler]

1. looks very good!

article by Szymanski or not, Buchanan worker or not: as a real pilot of airliners, Wittenberg's hard to deny.

[philb]

64. So are we determining credibility based on whether they voted for Bush, Go

Gore, or Buchanan? There are reasons not to vote for any of them.

I supported the real reform party candidate, Robert Bowman, who won the major primaries such as Florida, Calif., etc. but was ousted by Buchanan in a coup that had nothing to do with votes or elections. More strong arm stuff, which also was the way the whole election turned out to be decided. Strong arm coup rather than democracy.

The election in Florida wasn't even close. Except that they declared a person to have won who got many thousand less votes than another candidate, as verified later by a Media recount. but somehow nothing was ever done regarding the obvious corruption and lack of legitamacy of the process.

[MercutioATC]

2. The pilot was only an "ace" if he meant to hit where he did.

Assuming the Pentagon was the target, the plane had to hit SOMEWHERE. Hitting exactly where it did doesn't prove anything.

Yes, FLYING a commercial airliner is difficult (especially landings). CRASHING one would be much easier.

[rman]

5. Crashing in a very controlled manner while performing such a maneuver

seems to be a bit more difficult.

How would you manage to not touch the lawn?
Coincidence?

[MercutioATC]

6. That's just the way it happened...

Throw a baseball at a wall. How did you manage to hit that EXACT spot? More incredibly, how did you manage not to hit ANYWHERE ELSE?!?!?

You must be one hell of a pitcher!


The goal was to hit the wall (or, on 9/11, the Pentagon). That was relatively easy. It's not logically sound to argue that the pitcher (pilot) had to be an ace because he hit exactly where he did.

[ladjf]

18. MercutioATC, why would you post such an illogical rebuttal

of the pilot's theory about the flight? Do you one hour as pilot in command of an airplane?

[pox americana]

24. I also tend to put stock in the pilot's analysis

He would understand the maneuver a lot more than any of us.

[ladjf]

25. I must have misunderstood you point. Sorry.

[pox americana]

26. no I agree with you

If this guy is a 35-year pilot he's probably a lot more alert to the details of the official story and what it would have involved aviation-wise than the debunkers here.

I have to say that it looks pretty clear to me that entering the building horizontally, a few feet above the ground, instead of just dive-bombing through the roof, would have been a difficult stunt.

[MercutioATC]

36. I agree with your last paragraph, Pox Americana

My contention is that the plane hit where it hit...it wasn't AIMING for the wall, just the building in general.

TRYING to hit the wall would be very difficult. I don't know that aiming for the building in general and happening to HIT the wall is any indication of great skill on the pilot's part.

[MercutioATC]

34. "Illogical"??

I'm simply stating that it's a lot easier to hit a building than a SPECIFIC place on a building and that it's not logically defensible to base the pilot's assumed skill on the exact place he hit.

How is that illogical?

...and no, I'm not a pilot.

[StrafingMoose]

8. His main point is...

That doing what the Flight 77 pilot would have sent the jet into a stall, a total loss of control for several seconds. Not quite what happened if you look at the intact lawn.

Instead, the plane flew juuuuust above the lawn to hit directly in the renovating part of the Pentagon.

[MercutioATC]

35. I'm not a pilot and I can't speak for the effects of the turn, but

3,500 fpm in a descent is nothing. I regularly have commercial airliners (carrying passengers that need to be kept comfortable) do over 4,000 fpm.

[Frederik]

40. I disagree

Hani Hanjour couldn't fly a Cessna. Assuming it was him flying - why didn't he just dive into the Pentagon, instead of making that steep, spiral descent?

"Yes, FLYING a commercial airliner is difficult"

And Hani Hanjour supposedly FLEW the 757 from over Ohio or thereabouts to Washington D.C.

[MercutioATC]

43. He did what he did to hit the Pentagon.

Whether he dove into it or spiraled in, he hit the building. Flying a commercial plane in relatively level flight wouldn't be that difficult if you were somewhat familiar with what the controld did. You or I could do it.

Landing is another matter, but AAL77 didn't land, it crashed (something either one of us could do, too).

[Frederik]

44. Well, I don't think I could do it

maybe you could.

[MercutioATC]

45. Have you ever flown a commercial jet? Ever ridden in the cockpit?

I haven't flown one, but have jumpseated many times. Once off the ground, it's not something somebody couldn't learn from Microsoft's flight simulator...as long as nothing went wrong. (as AAL77 didn't land, I'm not including the skill required to land).

To fly safely, with the minumum discomfort to passengers, and land in one piece is a task only possible with extensive training and experience. To assume control of a plane at cruise altitude, input a new destination into the FMS, and crash it into a building once it is visually acquired is much less difficult.


We used to have a couple of commercial pilots here at DU. See if any of them disagree.

[carlvs]

3. Great...

linking to sites that provided forums for Holocaust "revisionists" and advocates of "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" wasn't good enough for the CTers. Now they go on and feel that a site that is just a mouthpiece for The John Birch Society is a valid source?!?

[StrafingMoose]

15. Thanks for your constructive input...

:sarcasm:

[carlvs]

21. You CTers want to link to these garbage sites!

Don't start whining when someone points out their TRUE nature...

[StrafingMoose]

22. You are the one that's currently whinning, IMHO.

And looking at your post count, you seem interested only in making these kind of posts on this precise board.

[pox americana]

23. I think it's Libertarian

The front page has a link labeled "Libertarian Political Philosophy" and one labeled "Political Parties" that links to the the Libertarian Party of Washington State:

http://www.lewisnews.com/resource.asp?ID=36&Name=Political+Parties

[Frederik]

41. The interesting part is the pilot and what he has to say

Assuming he is quoted correctly, and that he really is who he claims to be, the nature of the site which provides the interview is irrelevant. I don't like those sites any more than you do, but I don't let that cloud my judgement of what this pilot has to say.

[Kevin Fenton]

4. Totally impossible

"totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna to maneuver the jetliner in such a highly professional manner"

Hanjour could not have done it, no question. The OCT is wrong on this point, no argument from me on that.

However, we only have the FBI's word that HH was the best pilot of the hijackers on American 77 and I'm inclined to doubt them on this point (and on many others).

It's worth pointing out that one of the alleged hijackers, Salem Al-Hazmi, was not actually on the plane and later showed up alive. We do not know anything about the person who stole his identity - perhaps he was a good pilot.

Also, Al Qaeda owned its own airline and had its own pilots. Could they not have trained pilots without the FBI finding out during its very superficial investigation?

Further, one of the names on the original list of hijackers, Mansour Khaled, was deleted before the list was officially released. Mohammed Atta lived with a Mansour (then known as Atif bin Mansour) for a year in Hamburg. Could this be the same person? Atif bin Mansour was a fighter pilot with the Pakistani air force. I bet he could have done that manouvre.

[philb]

28. The plan as executed doesn't make sense and couldn't be expected to succee

d unless you knew NORAD was taking the day off for some reason.
(you have a point about some of your comments, - but its not enough of a point; though why didn't the 9/11 Commission try to clarify some of that)

The plan for 9/11 as it occurred couldn't have been expected to succeed, so such an apparently dumb plan wouldn't have been used by someone who really wanted to take out WTC and Pentagon.

NORAD normally requires no more than 15 minutes to get jets that fly at 30 miles per minute to any point in the Eastern U.S. So a plan with a reasonable chance of success would have to plan on giving NORAD no more than 15 minutes warning. so for WTC you would choose a flight from airport close to N Y or traveling by N Y or to N Y. That would give least warning. The Boston flights with the unusual diversions gave plenty of time to NORAD to intercept under normal conditions. So couldn't have been expected to succeed, unless the hijackers knew something ahead of time about 9/11.

The other 2 flights are even more ridiculous from a planning standpoint. Allowing the flights to go all the way to Ohio, or Kentucky, or Kansas and flying all over the eastern U.S. for an hour could not be expected to result in successful result unless you know you will have a stand down.

And shutting off transponders is not what Arab hijackers would want to do, even if they knew how. It gives no benefit and makes the mission less likely to succeed if your goal is just to not call attention to yourself and take out the WTC and Pentagon. The planes can still be tracked by FAA and NORAD (and Pentagon) radar, and the altitude isn't important unless the real object of cutting off the transponders is to confuse someone about which plane is which or replace a plane by a remote control plane. Which isn't something Arab hijackers would want to do. With transponders off 2 planes in the same area only show up as one blip, and the 4 planes had diversions to cross paths and fly near airports and to areas where FAA ATC regions changed. The only advantage to these diversions that I can think of would be to allow switches in planes, and doesn't seem to be something Arab hijackers would do. Am I missing something?

[Kevin Fenton]

29. Various

"The plan for 9/11 as it occurred couldn't have been expected to succeed,"
I woud argue that the hijackers did not expect the plan to succeed 100%, i.e. 5 hijacks (I count United 23) and 5 hits. I think they would have been happy with (and expected) one or two "successes" and some failures. The hijackers' plan maximised the chances of partial success (expecially that of the first plane), although this made it less likely that the others would succeed. This is why the other planes were supposed to be hijacked at the time American 11 hit the WTC.

"NORAD normally requires no more than 15 minutes to get jets that fly at 30 miles per minute to any point in the Eastern U.S."
How do you work that out? What is the 15 minutes you are referring to? Is it the scramble time or the travel time after take off to intercept a plane?
30 miles per minute? I think that's the maximum speed without extra fuel tanks, whereas the fighters launched on 9/11 had extra tanks so they could stay in the air longer.
Plus, it takes ATC several minutes to figure out a plane has been hijacked. Boston ATC put out the first notification that American 11 had been hijacked at 8:25, which is 11 minutes after the plane was taken over.
My calculation is that a good response time is 25 minutes after ATC realises there is a hijack - ATC has to make some calls, the military has to make some calls, the planes have to actually scramble (which takes a maximum of 15 minutes itself), the planes have to climb and pick up speed, then they have to reach the hijacked plane. Therefore I think the Otis fighters should have been over New York at 8:50. In actual fact, they were still 4-5 minutes out at 9:03, when United 175 hit. I think the response time is poor, but not suspiciously so. My real problems with air defence begin at Langley, with the fighters sitting on the ground and no CAP over Washington.

I don't know why they switched the transponders off. However, I think it makes it harder for an interceptor to find them, as the fighter pilot cannot get their altitude from a radar station and has to make a visual search. Therefore, turning transponders off increases the time needed to actually shoot down a rogue airliner.

[Frederik]

42. Very good points

Al-Qa'ida, or Bin Laden & Associates, controlled the Afghani airline "Ariana", which they employed in drugs and weapons trafficking between Afghanistan and the United Arab Emirates. The idea that they would train suicide pilots in the US on Cessnas and Micrsosft Flight Simulator is ridiculous. I think Mansour Khaled was probably one of the pilots, and I'm pretty sure it's the same guy who lived with Atta & co.

A Pakistani fighter pilot would be perfectly capable of doing what the pilot of Flight 77 did. The FBI/911 Commission seems to have wanted to cover up the invlolvement of Pakistan, for instance they never mentoned the involvement of Lt. Gen. Ahmad.

There is something deeply suspicious about the 19/20 hijackers who were training in flight schools in the US when in would have made much more sense to train on real airliners in Afghanistan, and who went out of their way to be recognized, Oswald-style, and leave Korans in strip joints and so on. Too much like a cover story or a diversion. The question is, who duped whom?

[LARED]

7. Question

descended 7,000 feet in two minutes

Is there any reliable verification this is a fact?

[StrafingMoose]

9. Answer

According to the official CT:

"At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon.59 At 9:32, controllers at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control "observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed." This was later determined to have been Flight 77."

"At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon.60

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed"


8mins46 instead of 2 mins... But still is that possible without stalling? Anyways, I'm still bedazzled at his skills for not hitting the lawn at all at 530 miles per hour :freak:

[LARED]

11. I'm not a pilot, but it seems to me

descending 7000 feet in over eight minutes is not a difficult thing to do. That's about 13.3 feet per second. Seems to me most aircraft could handle that.

[StrafingMoose]

12. Got to take the 330 degree angle turn into account too...

is that a tight or loose angle? I suck at geometry. 90 deg would be a very tight (impossible) turn left or right, 180 would be backwards.. But 330?

[LARED]

16. A "330 degree turn" in a bit of a misnomer

The aircraft makes a 330 circle. If making a 360 degree circle the aircraft would continue on its path. A 180 degree turn would mean the aircraft goes into a turn and winds up going in the opposite direction.

[ladjf]

19. You show your lack of aeronautical knowledge.

It is no problem to loose the altitude. The point is that the plane did it in a controlled manner while turning, rolling out at exactly the right time and maintaining perfect level control 30 ft over the ground for quite a distance. Airliners don't handle like fighter planes. They have a very narrow envelope of radical maneuvers than can possible perform.

Perhaps, an individual who had rehearsed the maneuver for hours could have done it. But, a low time, single engine Cessna jockey. Doesn't seem possible, not even by luck.

[Make7]

30. controlled manner? exactly the right time? perfect level control?

ladjf wrote:
The point is that the plane did it in a controlled manner while turning, rolling out at exactly the right time and maintaining perfect level control 30 ft over the ground for quite a distance.

Is that based on information from the Flight Data Recorder, radar, or eyewitness accounts?

-Make7

[ladjf]

57. Radar and eyewitness accounts.

"Knowing the flight characteristics of the “big birds” like the back of his hand, 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.”
"


It is a fact that the plan made an almost complete circle, descended 7,000, rolled out on a perfect heading for the Pentagon, flew at ground level for quite a distance.

[Make7]

59. Perhaps you could provide an eyewitness.

Does RADAR even have adequate resolution and have a high enough sampling rate to make a claim of "a perfect heading"?

(http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_052678.pdf)
____________________

As a pilot, do you believe it would be impossible to achieve the proper heading coming out of a turn if the object you were trying to line up with was in sight?
____________________

Perhaps you could provide a link to an eyewitness that states that the plane was "maintaining perfect level control 30 ft over the ground for quite a distance."

Thanks,
Make7

[ladjf]

60. Response to Make7

"Does RADAR even have adequate resolution and have a high enough sampling rate to make a claim of "a perfect heading"?"

The plane hit the Pentagon. That was "perfect" enough.

____________________

"As a pilot, do you believe it would be impossible to achieve the proper heading coming out of a turn if the object you were trying to line up with was in sight?"

Most of the time when landing at an airport, the plan approaches from a heading that is 90 degrees further to the right than the heading of the runway. (base leg). The answer to your second question is that in a simple, shallow turn of 90 degrees, it is easy to line up on a large linear target,i.e. the runway. But, in the case of a steep diving and circling , then leveling out for the final run, I believe it to be a near impossible feat for a beginner pilot.
____________________

"Perhaps you could provide a link to an eyewitness that states that the plane was "maintaining perfect level control 30 ft over the ground for quite a distance.""

For one thing, some light poles were knocked down by the approaching plane. That is proof of the planes altitude prior to hitting the building. Numerous other sighting described the plane as being very low to the ground. If you are interested, you can find those accounts. It's also obvious from the hole in the building that the plane was flying straight and level at the moment of impact.

Thanks,
Make7

[Make7]

62. How tall were the lightpoles? What was the planes altitude?

(How far did the goalposts move?)
____________________

I could not find a single eyewitness account that said that the plane flew perfectly level 30 ft of the ground for any amount of distance. Could you help me out with that?
____________________

Would it be easy to line up an object in a shallow turn of 330 degrees? Wouldn't that essentially be the same turn as your 90 degree turn except that it lasts longer?

-Make7

[janedoe]

61. The "evidence" for that story is the downed lamposts.

Isn't it amazing that the pilot of that airplane was able to knock down all of the lamp posts in its path (3-5 lamp posts?) and still hold its course! Gee, that's a trick in itself. Bank into a steep turn, clip lamp posts, and maintain control.

[Make7]

63. That's a good one.

The pilot was able to deliberately knock down lampposts on the approach to the target. That proves they were flying in a controlled manner.

Obviously that takes a great deal of skill. A lessor pilot might have avoided the lampposts altogether rather than chance something going wrong as they were showing off their superior piloting skills by taking them out.

:) Make7

[LARED]

31. Two Questions?

The point is that the plane did it in a controlled manner while turning, rolling out at exactly the right time and maintaining perfect level control 30 ft over the ground for quite a distance.

Are you a pilot and what the hell are you talking about?

You don't know if any of the above is true. You don't know if the plane was operating in a controlled manner, nor do you know if it rolled at exactly the right time, or if there was perfect level control at 30 feet off the ground.

[StrafingMoose]

32. Controlled manner = no autopilot?

"At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000"

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

And for a plane this big at "530 miles per hour" and not touch the lawn at this altitude at all is quite a good control, if not perfect.

Isn't it accepted also that the plane hit the Pentagon perpendicularily? I'm not sure about this one tough...

[LARED]

38. Big, big .....if....... is attached to your statement

And for a plane this big at "530 miles per hour" and not touch the lawn at this altitude at all is quite a good control, if not perfect.

IF

a predetermined target was hit.

No one knows where flight 77 was intended to hit. You are assuming control was good, if not perfect not knowing if he was even close to the intended target. All anyone knows is the plane crashed. Crashing a plane is simple, requireing no special skills.

[StrafingMoose]

39. Of course...

I don't know the target at all. But I think we can agree that the target wasn't a car in the street, and it's pretty obvious the the Pentagon building was the target, and wasn't hit by accident. Hell, you would go to Bush or Rumsfeld saying "We don't really know what was the target of Fl 77" and even them would look at you a funny way :P

Yes, crashing a plane doesn't require any skill but crashing it in the Pentagon horizontaly which isn't a tall building at all requires some luck, or some skills.

I know, it could have very well crashed in the roof, 100 feet away of the building, etc etc...

Whatever you say, as documented it can be won't send me back to sleep on this one. There isn't, IMO, any smoking gun about this issue, but better not conclude anything specific for now.

[ladjf]

56. One question. Why are being so hostile?

The answer to your first question, yes, I'm a pilot with over 6,000 hours as PIC. The answer to question two is that I was discussing the difficulty of the maneuver as described in the first post:
"Knowing the flight characteristics of the “big birds” like the back of his hand, 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.”
"

I don't know where Mr. Wittenberg got his information. But, I've heard other reports similar to that. Another poster has stated that it would be easy to lose 7,000 feet in two minutes. I was pointing out that the simple loss of 7,000 was no great feat. But, if as reported , the aircraft made an almost complete circle and then rolled out on ground level, maintaining that for quite a distance, that would be a major feat.

If the plane did execute an almost full circle, while loosing altitude fast and hit the Pentagon, it was under control.

[LARED]

10. Answer

Not a fact. It took over eight minutes to descend.

All those not surprised wave your hand :hi:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22jul20041130/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf

At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon. At 9:32, con-trollers at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach. Control “observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed.” This was later deter-mined to have been Flight 77.

At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House.American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn.At the end of the turn,it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington.

The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon. At 9:37:46,American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon,traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour

[Kevin Fenton]

13. So what

if the final descent of 7,000 feet was in the last two and a half minutes? (assuming that it was travelling at 420 miles an hour) in this time the plane would have gone 17.5 miles, making the descent fairly shallow. How long does it take a plane to reach/descend from a cruising altitude of around 35,000 feet? If a plane descends 7,000 feet every two and a half minutes, then it descends from 35,000 to the ground in 12.5 minutes. A little faster than usual, but hardly enough to make it stall. As for the turning circle, it's tight for a WWII aircraft carrier, but not for a modern jetliner.

[StrafingMoose]

14. According to the official CT...

At 9:34 is started to turn and go down, at the end of the turn it was at about 2,200 feet, then it drove full speed into the Pentagram.

But when did it end its turn? If it crashed in at 9:37:46 and started to go down to 2,200 feet at 9:34 then it must have done such a nosedive ...

Maybe they're saying Fl 77 "STALLED INTO the Pentagon" :freak:

[Kevin Fenton]

33. Eh?

"But when did it end its turn? If it crashed in at 9:37:46 and started to go down to 2,200 feet at 9:34 then it must have done such a nosedive ..."
Nosedive? Where? It seems to have flown level or nearly level with the ground for some time before impact.

[StrafingMoose]

37. That's my point...

The OCT says at 9:34 (at this point it was at 7,000 feet, 5 miles of the building) it started to turn and was at 2,200 feet when it reached the end of the turn. Afterwards full speed into the Pentagon, hit at 9:37:46.

I just think it's odd that the OCT states that "X mins" ("after the end of the turn" which takes sometime) after 9:34 it was at 2,200 feet (or a little bit less) and seconds before 9:37:46 it was perfectly (more or less considering the aircraft size not hitting the ground at all) flying above the lawn of the Pentagon. EDITED FOR LARED: Willingly or NOT :D

[Kevin Fenton]

51. Speed

One mile is 5,280 feet.
If the plane was travelling at 420 miles an hour, then it would have travelled 3.5 miles in the last thirty seconds. If thirty seconds were the point it were at 2,200 feet, the subsequent rate of descent would have therefore been 2,200/15,840, which is about one foot down for every seven feet across. That's probably a little steeper than such planes usually climb/descend, but I don't think it's impossible in such a plane.

I think the idea that the manouvre was somehow specially complicated is incorrect, but a below-average Cessna pilot like Hanjour could barely have kept the plane level, never mind turning it and descending.

[ladjf]

17. ATC video tapes of the flight path, analyzed by professionals ,would most

definitely either prove or disprove these statements. Where are those tapes?

[StrafingMoose]

20. Another thing that would help...

Is the full movie of the 5 photos frame FOX News published in 2002 that had been acknowledged by official as being authentic.

You see a blury white thing in the upper right corner but nothing explicit defining any kind of plane shape.

[philb]

27. Lots of military & commercial pilots agree with him; impossible that

the alleged hijackers were flying the planes, and that they could have gotten into 4 locked cockpits of experienced pilots, some with military training and 2 knowing hijackings had already occurred without any of the pilots punching the hijack warning button, which takes only seconds. And at least the 2 pilots that knew of the previous hijackings would have not let the hijackers take over the plane, and they had the means to prevent it, namely putting the plane into so many Gs the hijackers couldn't have stood up. And the flight attendants had communications to warn the pilots. No surprise possible.

Also according to the phone calls, those on some of the flights knew about the other hijackings, and they had the hijackers hugely outnumbered and outmanned. No contest.

[nashville_brook]

46. i can't say if this guy has the "truth" or not...

but his "voice" reminds me of all the military folks i grew up around. that "can't fool me," "i've seen this before," "this is the sort of thing 'big dogs' know about and the rest of ya'll just don't get," sort of voice. it has a ring of truth to it b/c of those experiences around military.

[Ezlivin]

47. What if EVERY professional pilot said it was impossible?

It seems that if every single professional pilot spoke with with one voice and said that the events surrounding the Pentagon crash were not as they were portrayed, there would still be people on this board who would doubt their judgment.

I'm a pilot. Not a professional, just a General Aviation (GA) pilot. I have no experience flying the "big birds". However, the physics of flight scale nicely, so a maneuver done in a GA aircraft is typically harder to duplicate in a larger, more complex aircraft (ie, landing a Cessna is easier than landing a 747).

When making ANY turn, a pilot needs to remain aware of his airspeed. In a turn the inside wing will "fly" at a different speed than the outside wing. The tighter the turn, the greater the speed differential. It's possible to make a turn so tight that the inside wing simply quits providing lift (it "stalls"). This is a leading cause of accidents in GA. It is easy to enter a turn too tightly and stall the inside wing with insufficient altitude to recover. Typically a plane will immediately enter a spin when put into a stall in a turn.

If the pilot of the aircraft that struck the Pentagon intended to hit the building, the easiest approach (by far) would have been a straight, level approach with a steadily decreasing altitude. With poor piloting skills, this would have been the wisest choice.

However, the pilot of the Pentagon-bound aircraft passed over/by the Pentagon first, then had to initiate a turn to come back into alignment with the building (as to strike it). Even assuming that the pilot only wished to hit the building and not any particular point, this is a demanding requirement as the "target" is receding at the rate of 400+ MPH. The pilot needs to know the maximum angle he can bank the aircraft without stalling and entering a spin. Too sharp a turn and there is insufficient altitude to recover. Too shallow a turn and the pilot will not strike the Pentagon.

Not only does the pilot need to turn back to the target safely, he also needs to lose sufficient altitude as to impact the target. So the pilot has to maintain sufficient airspeed (generally done by throttling up the engines), maintain the proper bank angle and also decrease altitude at the proper rate (too much, too soon and he falls short of the target; too little and he must try another turn to come back).

A million hours in Microsoft Flight Simulator doesn't mean a damned thing. Until you've been in a real aircraft in real weather with your real life on the line, you have never flown an aircraft. Despite how "simple" it appears to move from the jump seat to the pilot's seat and perform a maneuver, don't ever discount the hundreds of hours of intense study it takes for professional pilots to do what appears to be quite simple.

[MercutioATC]

48. I'm not discounting pilots' training and experience at all.

What I AM saying is that what pilots do and what the hijackers did are two very different things. Your post seems to view flying from a standpoint of self-preservation (I'd certainly hope so). I don't believe this was a concern of the hijackers.

No, the path of AAL77 doesn't suggest the path an experienced pilot would have taken. It very well might, however, accurately represent how an inexperienced pilot would crash an airplane.

[Ezlivin]

49. An inexperienced pilot could not have done the job

It would take an experienced pilot to pull off the maneuver.

Sure, an inexperienced pilot could have done it. And an inexperienced pilot could have circled the globe, flown the shuttle, piloted Apollo 11 or landed on the moon. But none did.

You said: "What I AM saying is that what pilots do and what the hijackers did are two very different things."

Regardless of who sat in the left seat, they had to fly the aircraft as ANY pilot would. The laws of aerodynamics do not change because someone less experienced is at the controls. Several key events had to be noted and adjusted for during the flight regime. Any mistake would have caused the plane to miss its target. The fact that every single aircraft (save the one downed in Pennsylvania) accurately hit its target after being flown manually speaks volumes about the talent of the pilots at the controls.

If a pilot could not successfully complete a check ride in a Cessna, there is no way in hell that same pilot is going to successfully pilot a highly-complex jet aircraft.

[MercutioATC]

50. We seem to be at an impasse.

I don't agree, but I do understand what you're saying.

[LARED]

52. Stalling

It's possible to make a turn so tight that the inside wing simply quits providing lift (it "stalls").

That would imply a pretty tight turn radius and a relatively low speed going into a turn. Nothing indicates flight 77 was going slow enough to stall as it turned.

Also

Do you have any reason to believe a jet could turn that tightly and that the control system would allow a pilot to maneuver a "big bird" in that way?

[Ezlivin]

53. The minimum radius of a turn is partly a function of wingspan

Each individual aircraft will describe a circle of varying radii. The larger the aircraft, the larger the radius of the circle. (Pretty self-evident, eh?)

The airspeed at which a wing stalls in a turn is based upon the bank angle. This is what Plane & PIlot magazine says: "Stall speed increases dramatically as the bank angle becomes more dramatic. When you add flaps, you indeed lower the stall speeds, but the percentage rate of increase in the stall speed as the bank angle increases remains the same."

You said: "That would imply a pretty tight turn radius and a relatively low speed going into a turn. Nothing indicates flight 77 was going slow enough to stall as it turned."

You can stall an aircraft just by putting it into a turn if your airspeed is too low. For instance, it's possible to fly any aircraft in a straight and level course at an airspeed just a few knots over the stall speed. But if the aircraft is put into a turn without increasing the airspeed, the aircraft will lose altitude and, if the bank is too steep (and this is relative to the airspeed; a bank of only 20° could be too steep) the aircraft is liable to stall and spin.

The stall speed of an aircraft is also affected by its weight and balance. An overweight aircraft will stall sooner; an improperly balanced aircraft will stall sooner. On large aircraft care has to be taken in managing the fuel to maintain proper weight distribution. I can't take off in a Piper PA-28 with full wing tanks if I have more than 60 pounds behind the front seat. Even on in GA we have to watch our weight and balance figures.

Did the inexperienced pilot extend flaps? If he didn't the stall speed would be higher, requiring a shallower bank angle to avoid stalling a wing. If he did extend flaps, then he wouldn't be that inexperienced. (He'd have to know the proper speed at which to deploy flaps; very bad things can happen otherwise.) Additionally, the amount of flaps extended will affect the stall speed. On approach it's typical (for me) to start with 10° of flaps, then increase to 20° and on final drop in the last 10°. Full flaps on a Piper PA-28 makes for a fairly steep glide slope.

I'm not a professional pilot, so I can only offer conjecture on some of the operating principles of the big heavies. It's my understanding, however, that the aircraft is supplied with sufficient "intelligence" to try to keep its operation within the envelope of safety. Captain Al Haynes was considered a hero when he crash landed his DC-10 in Sioux City, Iowa. He was able to make the runway only because he took manual control of the aircraft so that he could do things the computer normally wouldn't allow (or couldn't during the emergency).

[StrafingMoose]

54. "Control system" ?

Have you just changed "autopilot" for "control system" ? It was off.

If not, could you please explain what you mean by "control system"?

But I do think it would be plausible for a big plane like that to have a "No No" system that prevents you from going in a wild "combat flight" mode.

[LARED]

55. Re

I was not referring to autopilot controls. All aircraft have control systems to some degree. Even with autopilot off there are control systems for all inputs from the pilot in aircraft that large.

I am not an aeronautical engineer, but have loads of experiences with control systems. Large commercial aircraft will most likely have self limiting controls. In other words, the control system will only allow you a predefined range of operation. If you wanted to make a turn, the control system may limit how quickly you can turn or how quickly you can descend.

As an example, you could be driving your car at 60 mph and spin the wheel quickly causing you to roll the car. If you had a limiting control system you could only turn the steering wheel at a certain rate, not hard enough to flip over. Anti-lock brakes are a control system that limits how hard the brakes contact the rotor so that it will not stop the wheel from spinning.

I'm pretty certain a commercial aircraft has the equivalent of anti-lock brakes for many of it control systems. The system will not allow you to do something outside of capabilities of the craft.

[screembloodymurder]

58. Listen to him. He's an expert.

Even the best pilots in the world would have had a difficult time flying these aircraft. This is not conspiracy theory. I've heard it from one of the best pilots ever to fly.