Aeronautical Engineer Claims Hijacker Piloting on 9/11 'Impo

[Linda]

Aeronautical Engineer Claims Hijacker Piloting on 9/11 'Impossible'

'Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 - an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student's first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get. Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.

Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."

Marwan Al-Shehhi: "He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls."

Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons."

Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all."'

BUT, OF COURSE, HE DIDN'T.

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/aeronautical-engineer-claims-hijacke r.html


Monday, February 20, 2006
Aeronautical Engineer Claims Hijacker Piloting on 9/11 'Impossible'
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training - PrisonPlanet.com


Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft.

There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.

What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I've heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks - invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.

A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how "easy" it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the "open sky". But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.
..
In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard" instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying "blind", I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as "IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules.
..
Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 - an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student's first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.

Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."

Marwan Al-Shehhi: "He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls."

Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons."

Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all."
..
Conclusion
The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers "took control" of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they'd realize the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.

In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH - and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.


This is quite a smashing write up by Nila Sagadevan, be sure to check out the whole article. I did a brief search for Nila and found a book he had written, and a little bit about him on amazon:

Nila Sagadevan was born in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and educated in Britain. Born in a predominantly Buddhist country to liberal-minded Hindu parents who encouraged belief in a single Creator, he was sent at the age of 5 to Christian boarding schools where he read the Bible, attended Sunday school, and sang in the school choir.

An aeronautical engineer-turned-pilot, Sagadevan left Scotland for America in 1972. He lived in Alaska for 15 years when a profound, life-altering experience changed his concept of earthly religions forever, and caused him to deeply ponder the anthropocentric mindset that guides human life. His quest for knowledge and self-inquiry has led him on a journey through more than 40 countries and to many of the centers of the world's major religions.

Sagadevan, who was the featured guest in a television documentary on extraterrestrial phenomena, also hosted his own radio program, The Open Mind, in the 1980s. The program, which discussed declassified "Top Secret" government documents obtained through the Freedom Of Information Act, reached millions of listeners in the US and Europe. Sagadevan's writings-on world affairs, race relations, spirituality, and other subjects-have appeared in a variety of magazines and newspapers. He lives with his wife and teenage son in Southern California.


I also found where he has been in communication with Jim Fetzer of Scholars for 911 Truth, here is a quick snip from an email on the subject of cell phone calls on 9/11:
(link)

Fellow SPINE (Scientific Professionals Investigating Nine-Eleven) member, A.K. Dewdney, is professor of mathematics at the University of Waterloo, Ontario. Upon conducting a series of exhaustive tests using a variety of cell phones on several general aviation aircraft, he has written a paper on the subject entitled, 'Project Achilles' (http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm).

It must be clearly understood that Prof. Dewdney's tests were conducted in slow-moving (<150kts) light aircraft at relatively low altitudes (<9000ft AGL). The aircraft from which the alleged calls were made on 9/11 were flying at over 30,000 ft at speeds of over 500 MPH.

During a recent round-trip flight from Orange County, CA to Miami, FL (via Phoenix, AZ), I, personally conducted an unofficial 'test' using a brand new Nokia 6101 cellular phone [NB: 2005 technology]. En route, I attempted (discretely, of course) a total of 37 calls from varying altitudes/speeds. I flew aboard three types of aircraft: Boeing 757, 737, and Airbus 320. Our cruising altitudes ranged from 31-33,000ft, and our cruising speeds, from 509-521 MPH (verified post-flight by the captains). My tests began immediately following take-off. Since there was obviously no point in taking along the wrist altimeter I use for ultralight flying for reference in a pressurized cabin, I could only estimate (from experience) the various altitudes at which I made my attempts.

Of the 37 calls attempted, I managed to make only 4 connections, and every one of these was made on final approach, less than 2 minutes before flare, I.e., at less than 2,000ft AGL.


.. and in the same thread, a quote from George Nelson (Colonel, USAF ret.):

For what it's worth, I recently flew a Cherokee 140, VFR, from Point Royal, Virginia to Lawrenceburg, Tennessee at 4500 to 6500 feet. Using a 6340 Nokia, which has both the old and new transition technology. I was unable to make even one connection during the entire trip. The phone register markings showing reception and transmission quality never appeared over 2,000 feet, and much of the time I was flying over Interstate highways where most of the cell towers are located. I was surprised that Prof. Dewdney was able to get any connections at all on his flights.


Quite a lot to look over here.. If you happen to work with an amateur pilot (like I do) try asking them some theoretical questions and feel free to share in the comments section.

Thanks The Professional for the heads up!

posted by dz at 11:20 PM EST

Comments (20) | Trackback (0) << Home



hits since April 13 2005


(Internet Explorer 6 and below have issues handling CSS columns