The question of ability to pilot heavy craft - 9/11 related

[turner112 52]

Don't know if anyone's seen this, but I searched the forums and got no hits - http://www.physics911.net/sagadevan.htmAnyone with more "heavy" knowledge than me (and that would be most of you, probably) care to comment?.......Andrew

[John_Cillis 2,406]

It's more of the same conspiracy b.s. that disrespects those who died on 9/11, that's what the article is. I don't think it's worth someone coming in and refuting it, because the purpose of articles like the one you quote is to spin doubt and cause people to forget the evil behind 9/11. -JohnEdit: I should note the entire site seems dedicated to debunking 9/11... Just check the root link:http://www.physics911.net

[Guest Charlie]

I take it with 100 grains of salt, John, but are you 100% sure that no legitimate questions are raised? There cannot possibly be a grain of truth? If you are 100% sure, how? I don

[turner112 52]

Hi John - I'm not questioning from a conspiracy or non-conspiracy point of view - rather, without really knowing much about flying heavy aircraft beyond what I've experienced using flight simulator, I'm asking in order for someone who does have knowledge or experience with heavies to comment on the validity of the arguments in that article.[edit] Forgot to mention that I think the author has some misconceptions about simulators, and makes some fundamental logical errors throughout. That said, I still don't have enough (any!) real-world knowledge of flying a large aircraft.thanks,Andrew

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Andrew,I understand--I know you mean know ill will by posting the link. I just maintain that such sites, by trying to build "discussion" on the subject draw attention to themselves and their thinly veiled hatred of the U.S. government. Just like Iran's president likes to cause pain to members of the Jewish faith by suggesting the holocaust didn't happen, sites like this one are meant to cause pain and confusion--not to discuss anything aviation related. I believe anyone lending any effort to discuss the articles that are posted there is falling prey to the attention getting such agendas seek.-John

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"We were lied to about Iraq. I wish I could be 100% certain we were not lied to about 911."If you can't see this site for what it is, I can't comment. It's that we have such doubts, and that our government isn't perfect and doesn't always tell us the truth, that such sites flourish. IMHO it's a hate site veiled in psuedo-intellectual babble, not a site meant to raise legitimate questions. But I already see myself falling into the trap here, and won't discuss it further. Sorry to barge in.-John

[Guest Charlie]

John,I understand and respect what are are saying. In fact, I'd say 99% of me shares your point of view. I'm not at all saying I buy into it - just that I'm not quite as sure of what I'm sure of any more.There's something in my gut these days telling me not to dismiss that 1% of doubt. Our future may depend of our asking more questions than we did a few years ago and making fewer asssumptions.

[Guest jimslost]

Hi, Andrew. The thing I like best about message boards is how often my missives vanish into the ether .... I'll try again.No heavy time but with a few thousand hours in the 757 I can tell you it is easier to fly than a 172. Although it takes some practice, you can fly it visually; the picture in the article was taken from the jumpseat and is not an accurate representation. You can fly closer than 1/2 the wingspan from the ground if you trim to compensate for ground effect. And if the autopilot is engaged, you don't have to be Jimmy Doolittle to get the plane to a major city, especially on a clear day.For security reasons, I cannot share what we were told in our security briefings after 9/11, but I can tell you that no pilot I know who received those briefings had or has ANY doubt that Atta and his band were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It is unfortunate that our government, for reasons that have more to do with human nature than party affiliation, chose to manage the flow of information regarding 9/11 in a way that has spawned the current crop of conspiracy theories, but the phenomena is not new. It predates the JFK assassination and I am grimly confident that it will outlast all of us. Keep in mind that while history may or may not repeat itself, human nature always does.And no matter what you read or hear, always remember to consider the source before buying into the message.jim

[Tabs 2,790]

This is total crap. There's just no other way around it.Just by pointing out the fact that they called the MCP altitude selector the "altimeter" shows that I already know more than these supposed experts about 757 and 767 cockpits. I've been in a real one for less than probably 30 seconds in my lifetime, and I'm 100% positive I could fly that aircraft. Maybe not execute a precision manual landing or something like that, but it does not take much skill to understand how headings work, or that if you type "JFK" into the top line of the FMC and press EXEC that the plane will go straight to New York.The stuff about IFR flying is so unbelieveably wrong too. That was a crystal clear morning and they'd have been able to see for a hundred miles at least from those cockpits.The Pentagon 757 crash was witnessed by numerous credible observers on the freeway outside the building who identified it as an American Airlines 757. I'm not even going to get into the type of craziness and number of people/things that would have to be involved for that to have been faked. The conclusion comes before the "evidence" for the people that come up with these theories. That's not science.Here is a page though that debunks the Pentagon theories - I hope you guys as simmers can see this is good evidence:http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pe...e_evidence.htmlI'm sorry but virtually no one outside the legitimate aviation industry knows what they're talking about when it comes to these things. How often have we all stood in wonder as the network news shows, with budgets in the millions of dollars, constantly get basic facts about aircraft-related incidents wrong? I just watched some hysterical reporters the other day act like a blown tire on an ERJ at KIAH was a life threatening event that was sure to end in certain death for everyone aboard. Those of us who knew better laughed as the plane perfectly held the centerline on landing and people walked off the plane just fine...

[turner112 52]

Good stuff.Thanks, I haven't stumbled onto that one yet.They did spell diesel "desil", though, so I don't know if these guys are legit.;)Added: Oh, and I like this, too:"This thread has become the single-most popular piece of content on AboveTopSecret.com, sparking inspired debate and research throughout the Internet. However, the volume of material and issues on this subject (and in this thread alone) is overwhelming, making specific conclusions difficult, and evolution beyond the issue of what hit the Pentagon impossible."Well, then, you could register, and continue the debate...Andrew

[michal 44]

>We were lied to about Iraq.Yes, if you think you were lied to about Iraq then you can worry about 9/11 too. ;)Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[Guest]

>>We were lied to about Iraq.>>Yes, if you think you were lied to about Iraq then you can>worry about 9/11 too. ;)>We were lied to about Iraq.By Saddam, by Chirac, by the UN, by Russia and China, by CNN, NBC, ABC, and the BBC, by a lot of people, but not by the US government (at least not after 9/11).

[Guest Edam]

>-John>>Edit: I should note the entire site seems dedicated to>debunking 9/11... Just check the root link:>>http://www.physics911.netYep...they claim that the towers and WTC 7 were purposely brought down. Some people need to get a grip.

[michal 44]

>We were lied to about Iraq.>By Saddam, ...I could go along with it.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[BobK 0]

Here's another. These days, Snopes is a must. ;)http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm