









Group: Global Mod

Posts: 2,612

Joined: 30-January 09

Member No.: 4,095



Group: Global ModPosts: 2,612Joined: 30-January 09Member No.: 4,095









QUOTE (Nikki) Lauda judged that these gentlemen were properly trained to fly a plane like that. In particular, he stressed that you have to know exactly what the turning radius of a plane like that is.........That means, these had to be fully trained 767 or 757 pilots, because otherwise they would have missed. It certainly could not be the case that some half-trained pilot tries it somehow, because then he will not hit it. Thats not so easy, coming out of a curve .If hes coming out of a curve, then he has to know precisely the turning radius that derives from the speed of the plane in order to be able to calculate it, so that he will hit right there.



Jauch asked which was harder to hit, the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. Lauda:Well, what impressed me is the organization of this whole operation, since without good weather it would have not been possible at all, because then you cant see anything. These were visual flights, using VFR [visual flight rules] as we call them. And so the World Trade Center is relatively easy to find, because it is stands out so tall . The Pentagon is another matter again, because it is a building that is relatively flat. That means, they had to be trained well enough that they had flown around in the air in the New York area, I would speculate, so they could see the scene from above of where the building is located and how you could best reach it. To hit a flat building like the Pentagon is an even more difficult case than the World Trade Center.

Lauda: That means, to fly downwards out of a curve, and still hit the building in its core, I would have to be the best trained of all. I would speculate that a normal airline pilot would have a hard time with that, because you are simply not prepared for things like that. That means, they must have had some super-training to have been able to handle an airliner so precisely.

The Grandpre Seminar - German TV interview





QUOTE Jere Longman of the New York Times quotes Hank Krakowski, a 737 captain who was responsible for United's flight operations on 9/11. According to Krakowski, "If the guy was a professional pilot flying all the time, it would have been possible. If he was an occasional pilot, it would have been a pretty big challenge. You can get a boat into a dock, but it's a lot harder getting a cruise ship into a dock. The problem is the mass of the machine, the energy, the feel. It doesn't have the response of a smaller plane. It has much more kinetic energy. It takes training to get a feel for that." (Longman 188)



Remember that Hani Hanjur was supposed to have carried this out. It's been shown beyond a reasonable doubt, that he (or whoever presented himself at these flight schools) was a terrible pilot:



http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=3550





Here's the NTSB released animation of the "final manouvre" of alleged Flight 77



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0





Remember what Nikki Lauda said:



"To hit a flat building like the Pentagon is an even more difficult case than the World Trade Center....That means, to fly downwards out of a curve, and still hit the building in its core, I would have to be the best trained of all. I would speculate that a normal airline pilot would have a hard time with that, because you are simply not prepared for things like that. That means, they must have had some super-training to have been able to handle an airliner so precisely."



Lauda (rightly) saw the extreme difficulty for a professional pilot striking a 5 storey, 70ft tall target (which was allegedly struck just a few inches off the ground) having come out of a high speed, high banked turn, and for the pilot to "know precisely the turning radius that derives from the speed of the plane in order to be able to calculate it, so that he will hit right there"



But did he know just how mindnumbingly narrow the path actually was that Hani Hanjur, a Cessna reject, had supposedly calculated and executed using just Visual Flight Rules? Without instrumentation?



He had a margin of error just 28ft either side of wingtip.



In total, a corridor of just 60 meters or 180 feet. Think about that. This alleged 757 aircraft, with a wingspan of 124ft supposedly flew out of a tight radius from 8000ft, accelerated from ca. 400mph to 580mph at low altitude, lined up and maintained its course with virtually no deviation whatsoever within this incredibly narrow corridor.



The aircraft that struck the towers had a slightly wider target. 208 feet.





It's recommended to watch this Pilotsfor911Truth presentation of "Aircraft Controlabillity" before reading on (particularly for laymen like myself)





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEQtxTnDusk





VIRTUALLY NO MARGIN FOR ERROR AND NOT A RANDOM FLIGHTPATH:



The area that delineates this narrow corridor is the alleged entry point on to Route 27 between two overhead signs.



Remember that the aircraft was supposedly 20 - 22ft agl in accordance with the alleged lightpole damage.



http://s28.postimg.org/qrwyaptql/image.jpg



The first overhead sign is sandwiched between lightpole 1 and a ca. 80ft VDOT traffic camera mast (lightpole 1 is down in the following shot):



http://s28.postimg.org/4c5c12p59/image.jpg



Here's the same image with lightpole 1 digitally inserted:



http://s28.postimg.org/sehki7gel/image.jpg



The second overhead sign is just to the north (remember that the aircraft was supposedly 20-22ft above the bridge to the right of the image):



http://s28.postimg.org/nwf9q40ct/image.jpg





The distance between these two signs on the road is 103m/309ft



http://s28.postimg.org/rl4ypladp/image.jpg



The distance in which an alleged Boeing 757 (wingspan 124ft) had to navigate between these obstacles on the directional damage path is just 60m/180ft



http://s28.postimg.org/yzuahyw99/image.jpg





An idea of the alleged proximity of the right wing to obstacles on a 61.5° heading (directional damage path) can be seen here:



http://s28.postimg.org/ev0qci2fh/image.jpg





The significance of this? According to the alleged FDR data and directional damage path, the aircraft was basically flying "straight" for 22 seconds with only a change in heading of between 0.3° and 1.4° (see NTSB animation) and was allegedly successful in lining up what is the only conceivable path to make it to the facade without crashing in to these obstacles or flying over or to the side of them making impact a very unlikely affair.



http://s28.postimg.org/p7rmcblcd/image.jpg



Just a few feet off to the right and the aircraft would have struck the VDOT traffic camera mast and overhead sign.



To avoid the above obstacles by say, flying more to the right, which would have lined up with the south side of the Pentagon, the aircraft would not have had time to descend given that the roof of the building is almost the same level as this section of the road.



To avoid the obstacles by flying to the left, there are even more problems given that there are trees in the way



http://s28.postimg.org/fly1w0u6l/image.jpg



This is the only low level path through to the building. The only path through to the renovated section and the accountants.



And Hani did it! Miracle man.

For a layman, I found these two quotes helpful in getting just a glimpse in to what the 9/11 aircraft manouevres allegedly carried out by supposed sim jockeys with no flight time in commercial aircraft entailed. Particularly the alleged Pentagon manouevre.Remember that Hani Hanjur was supposed to have carried this out. It's been shown beyond a reasonable doubt, that he (or whoever presented himself at these flight schools) was apilot:Here's the NTSB released animation of the "final manouvre" of alleged Flight 77Remember what Nikki Lauda said:"To hit alike the Pentagon is an even more difficult case than the World Trade Center....That means, to fly downwards out of a curve, and still hit the building in its core, I would have to be the best trained of all. I would speculate that a normal airline pilot would have a hard time with that, because you are simply not prepared for things like that. That means, they must have had some super-training to have been able to handle an airliner so precisely."Lauda (rightly) saw the extreme difficulty for a professional pilot striking a 5 storey, 70ft tall target (which was allegedly struck just a fewoff the ground) having come out of a high speed, high banked turn, and for the pilot toBut did he know just howthe path actuallythat Hani Hanjur, a Cessna reject, had supposedly calculated and executed using just Visual Flight Rules? Without instrumentation?In total, a corridor of just 60 meters or 180 feet. Think about that. This alleged 757 aircraft, with a wingspan of 124ft supposedly flew out of a tight radius from 8000ft, accelerated from ca. 400mph to 580mph at low altitude, lined upThe aircraft that struck the towers had a slightlytarget. 208 feet.It's recommended to watch this Pilotsfor911Truth presentation of "Aircraft Controlabillity" before reading on (particularly for laymen like myself)The area that delineates this narrow corridor is the alleged entry point on to Route 27 between two overhead signs.Remember that the aircraft was supposedly 20 - 22ft agl in accordance with the alleged lightpole damage.The first overhead sign is sandwiched between lightpole 1 and a ca. 80ft VDOT traffic camera mast (lightpole 1 is down in the following shot):Here's the same image with lightpole 1 digitally inserted:The second overhead sign is just to the north (remember that the aircraft was supposedly 20-22ft above the bridge to the right of the image):The distance between these two signs on the road is 103m/309ftThe distance in which an alleged Boeing 757 (wingspan 124ft) had to navigate between these obstacles on the directional damage path is justAn idea of the alleged proximity of the right wing to obstacles on a 61.5° heading (directional damage path) can be seen here:The significance of this? According to the alleged FDR data and directional damage path, the aircraft was basically flying "straight" forwith only a change in heading of between(see NTSB animation) and was allegedly successful in lining up what is theconceivable path to make it to the facade without crashing in to these obstacles or flying over or to the side of them making impact a very unlikely affair.Just a few feet off to the right and the aircraft would have struck the VDOT traffic camera mast and overhead sign.To avoid the above obstacles by say, flying more to the right, which would have lined up with the south side of the Pentagon, the aircraft would not have had time to descend given that the roof of the building is almost the same level as this section of the road.To avoid the obstacles by flying to the left, there are even more problems given that there are trees in the wayThis is thelow level path through to the building. The only path through to the renovated section and the accountants.And Hani did it! Miracle man.