Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Yes Jack, they did spend time in a 737 simulator which is not unlike the 757 and 767. They also had cockpit diagrammes for the 757 and 767, flight manuals or handling notes for the aircraft, plus PC-based flight simulator programmes for those aircraft.

737%20Cockpit.jpg

737 Cockpit

B757%20cockpit.JPG

757 Cockpit

SAS767Cockpit1.jpg

767 Cockpit

As Mr. Brazil might say, provide references for the arabs "spending time in a simulator";

I have studied this since 2001 and have never seen such a reference; I guess I missed it.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mr. Brazil opined that a photo I posted was not of Church and Murray because the buildings

are wrong. He does not know the territory. One building has been remodeled since 2001 and

the windows coniguration is different.

I will be doing a series of studies showing what went on at Church and Murray on 9-11.

This is the first. It will take a while to do the others, since I am busy.

First, so you know the territory, look at this Google street scene.

Jack

(error in graphic revised)

Edited by Jack White
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes Jack, they did spend time in a 737 simulator which is not unlike the 757 and 767. They also had cockpit diagrammes for the 757 and 767, flight manuals or handling notes for the aircraft, plus PC-based flight simulator programmes for those aircraft.

737%20Cockpit.jpg

737 Cockpit

B757%20cockpit.JPG

757 Cockpit

SAS767Cockpit1.jpg

767 Cockpit

As Mr. Brazil might say, provide references for the arabs "spending time in a simulator";

I have studied this since 2001 and have never seen such a reference; I guess I missed it.

Jack

I already posted it in post number 4. You know, the post where you replied by saying "Giulio Bernacchia was not listed as one of the hijackers and is indeed alive" when it was never claimed that he was a hijacker. Apparently I was correct in wondering if you'd actually read it or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A very important point to note is that they were not being asked to fly precision approaches in bad weather, or deal with inflight emergencies; they simply had to guide the aircraft to a target.

That is not true. Yes, the weather was fine. However, there was every possibility that they may have to deal with an in flight emergency. As apparently happened in the flight that was shot down (?) in Shanksville. The other hijackers may have been over come by the passengers at any time. That is what I meant about the whole atmosphere being very charged. They were only supposed to have had box cutters too. No guns or bombs on board.

Landing/crashing a plane into a 'particular' building is precision flying in my book. The side of a building is not so big in the whole citiscape. More like a needle in a haystack. If they wanted they could have just flown into any old building and just as much damage could have been done. But they flew into apparently specially chosen land mark buildings. Also why the big turn around for the Pentagon? Hanjour could have just flown at it from the direction he was coming but there was this big turn around. I once watched a professional pilot do this same maneuver on a simulator. He could do it with much application and skill but it did test him. I don't know how some one with dodgy skills would go at all.

Edited by Maggie Hansen
Link to post
Share on other sites
Giulio Bernacchia was not listed as one of the hijackers and is indeed alive.

This is a bs non sequitur.

Jack

Whoever said he was one of the hijackers? He was presented as an expert's opinion. Seriously Jack, do you even read what is presented before you comment?

Your comprehension skills are inadequate.

I SAID: "Giulio Bernacchia was not listed as one of the hijackers"....THEREFORE

HIS OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT.

From that you infer that I said he was one of the hijackers.

Get a grip.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Giulio Bernacchia was not listed as one of the hijackers and is indeed alive.

This is a bs non sequitur.

Jack

Whoever said he was one of the hijackers? He was presented as an expert's opinion. Seriously Jack, do you even read what is presented before you comment?

Your comprehension skills are inadequate.

I SAID: "Giulio Bernacchia was not listed as one of the hijackers"....THEREFORE

HIS OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT.

From that you infer that I said he was one of the hijackers.

Get a grip.

Jack

So expert's opinions are not relevant? That's funny. I'm going to write that one down. You never said his opinion was not relevant. You simply said he was not listed as one of the hijackers and was alive. You then said, "This is a bs non sequitur."

From dictionary.com

non sequitur

1. Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.

2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

Since I presented no inference or conclusion, you incorrectly used "non sequitur". How is one supposed to infer that you mean an expert's opinion is not valid (an absurd proposition in and of itself) when you never say that and then use a term incorrectly? Perhaps you should brush up on your comprehension skills as well Jack. Or perhaps the "bs non sequitur" you were referring to was your own? Get a grip yourself Jack.

Edited by Matthew Lewis
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack,

You have been asked several times to correct the link to your biography. Please do so within 24 hours or your posts will be made invisible until you have corrected the oversight.

To in put a link to your biography:

1. Near the top of the page, on the right hand side, there is a link labeled MY CONTROLS. Click on that.

2. A new page will appear. Go to the left hand side, and look for the heading PERSONAL PROFILE. Under that heading will be a selection labeled EDIT SIGNATURE. Click on it.

3. A text box will appear. Simply paste the URL for your biography into that box, then click on UPDATE MY SIGNATURE at the bottom of the box.

We CANNOT do this for you; you have to do it yourself.

Thank you.

Jack,

I looked at every one of the Biographies :( and yours is not there.

I did find it, however, in the Introduce Yourself thread.

Here is the link to use in your signature:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...post&p=4141

Kathy

You could also add this information on the Bio thread.

Continual threats of banishment over a triviality is nonsense. I am here

at the invitation of Mr. Simkin. He registered me and posted my photo.

He posted my bio link himself, but the university has since changed it.

I have several times sent the correction, but it is ignored. The

correct link is:

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

Continued threat of banishment is harassment. Everybody here knows

who I am. I am well known. I am hiding nothing. Such threats over a

technicality are aimed ONLY at me. My photo is IDENTIFIABLE. Many others

are not. Some biographies are a JOKE. "Miller's" bio simply says "I am

a long-time JFK researcher, etc..." My bio is my entire life history and

can be accessed at the above site if anyone is interested. If MR. SIMKIN

wants to revise the link he originally posted for me, it is

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

When I previously suggested this, Mr. Walker called me A SENILE OLD

MAN. I say it is harassment, and a matter of principle.

Jack

biography:

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

Click on the link and you will find my biography. It is public information.

I am not withholding it from anyone.

After all Jack is not on other forums or web sites calling himself 'Jack Texas' or other such nom de alias is he? Or pretending to to be an 'advisor' of a 'peer reviewed journal' on a subject of which he knows nothing'

You may be with in the letter of the 'laws' of this forum but this is definitely persecution of a member and abuse by the moderator.

Is Jack White too special to follow the same rules he insists that others must follow? Do the same rules not apply to everyone? How many members has he harassed by insisting their bio was linked or their avatar was inadequate?

How hard is it really to just change the link yourself Jack? You've been given the instructions. Why must you be so stubborn?

Edited by Matthew Lewis
Link to post
Share on other sites
Landing/crashing a plane into a 'particular' building is precision flying in my book. The side of a building is not so big in the whole citiscape. More like a needle in a haystack. If they wanted they could have just flown into any old building and just as much damage could have been done. But they flew into apparently specially chosen land mark buildings. Also why the big turn around for the Pentagon? Hanjour could have just flown at it from the direction he was coming but there was this big turn around.

Maggie,

With due respect, to my knowledge you are not a pilot. I am. You don't need enormous skill, and these guys were licenced commercial pilots. They had practiced in simulators. The big turn around the Pentagon was to lose altitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Landing/crashing a plane into a 'particular' building is precision flying in my book. The side of a building is not so big in the whole citiscape. More like a needle in a haystack. If they wanted they could have just flown into any old building and just as much damage could have been done. But they flew into apparently specially chosen land mark buildings. Also why the big turn around for the Pentagon? Hanjour could have just flown at it from the direction he was coming but there was this big turn around.

Maggie,

With due respect, to my knowledge you are not a pilot. I am. You don't need enormous skill, and these guys were licenced commercial pilots. They had practiced in simulators. The big turn around the Pentagon was to lose altitude.

He could have dropped altitude any time on the flight from when they took over the plane. Why can't he point the plane down? Its going to crash anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack,

Please don't act like a petulant child. We cannot put the bio link in your details, you have to do that. Every other member has to do the same.

I have made your posts invisible until you comply with the requirement.

And... it is NOT a threat of banning. You have been told time and time again that neither myself or the other Moderators have that power. Only John or Andy can do this. Please do NOT make false accusations.

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maggie,

With due respect, to my knowledge you are not a pilot. I am. You don't need enormous skill, and these guys were licenced commercial pilots. They had practiced in simulators. The big turn around the Pentagon was to lose altitude.

With due respect, if it is so easy then why do they pay pilots so much? :( Can't have it both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Landing/crashing a plane into a 'particular' building is precision flying in my book. The side of a building is not so big in the whole citiscape. More like a needle in a haystack. If they wanted they could have just flown into any old building and just as much damage could have been done. But they flew into apparently specially chosen land mark buildings. Also why the big turn around for the Pentagon? Hanjour could have just flown at it from the direction he was coming but there was this big turn around.

Maggie,

With due respect, to my knowledge you are not a pilot. I am. You don't need enormous skill, and these guys were licenced commercial pilots. They had practiced in simulators. The big turn around the Pentagon was to lose altitude.

He could have dropped altitude any time on the flight from when they took over the plane. Why can't he point the plane down? Its going to crash anyway.

It's harder to hit a target coming straight down, rather than coming at it from an oblique angle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maggie,

With due respect, to my knowledge you are not a pilot. I am. You don't need enormous skill, and these guys were licenced commercial pilots. They had practiced in simulators. The big turn around the Pentagon was to lose altitude.

With due respect, if it is so easy then why do they pay pilots so much? :( Can't have it both ways.

Because airline pilots have to deal with regular check rides, systems knowledge, be able to bring people through bad weather with minimal discomfort, handle emergencies, etc. That is when they earn that money (have a think about the recent Qantas incidents).

Also, there are levels of licences: private, commercial, and air transport pilot (ATPL). Commercial means you can earn money flying, including carrying a certain number of passengers. ATPL means you can carry the number of passengers like you find on airlines. That where the big bucks come in. Regular commercial pilots often don't earn a great deal of money; many are trying to build their flying hours in order to go across to the airlines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack,

You have been asked several times to correct the link to your biography. Please do so within 24 hours or your posts will be made invisible until you have corrected the oversight.

To in put a link to your biography:

1. Near the top of the page, on the right hand side, there is a link labeled MY CONTROLS. Click on that.

2. A new page will appear. Go to the left hand side, and look for the heading PERSONAL PROFILE. Under that heading will be a selection labeled EDIT SIGNATURE. Click on it.

3. A text box will appear. Simply paste the URL for your biography into that box, then click on UPDATE MY SIGNATURE at the bottom of the box.

We CANNOT do this for you; you have to do it yourself.

Thank you.

Jack,

I looked at every one of the Biographies :( and yours is not there.

I did find it, however, in the Introduce Yourself thread.

Here is the link to use in your signature:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...post&p=4141

Kathy

You could also add this information on the Bio thread.

Continual threats of banishment over a triviality is nonsense. I am here

at the invitation of Mr. Simkin. He registered me and posted my photo.

He posted my bio link himself, but the university has since changed it.

I have several times sent the correction, but it is ignored. The

correct link is:

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

Continued threat of banishment is harassment. Everybody here knows

who I am. I am well known. I am hiding nothing. Such threats over a

technicality are aimed ONLY at me. My photo is IDENTIFIABLE. Many others

are not. Some biographies are a JOKE. "Miller's" bio simply says "I am

a long-time JFK researcher, etc..." My bio is my entire life history and

can be accessed at the above site if anyone is interested. If MR. SIMKIN

wants to revise the link he originally posted for me, it is

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

When I previously suggested this, Mr. Walker called me A SENILE OLD

MAN. I say it is harassment, and a matter of principle.

Jack

biography:

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

Click on the link and you will find my biography. It is public information.

I am not withholding it from anyone.

After all Jack is not on other forums or web sites calling himself 'Jack Texas' or other such nom de alias is he? Or pretending to to be an 'advisor' of a 'peer reviewed journal' on a subject of which he knows nothing'

You may be with in the letter of the 'laws' of this forum but this is definitely persecution of a member and abuse by the moderator.

Is Jack White too special to follow the same rules he insists that others must follow? Do the same rules not apply to everyone? How many members has he harassed by insisting their bio was linked or their avatar was inadequate?

How hard is it really to just change the link yourself Jack? You've been given the instructions. Why must you be so stubborn?

Like Jack said, he is not exactly an unknown figure in these areas where he posts - 911 and JFK. His bio is listed elswhere in the forum. He has asked that his bio be changed. It was originally put on the forum by John Simkin. My bio and photo were too. So there is obviously the technical ability for the bio to be changed by the forum owner. Though I am sure that John has better things to do than updating everyones bio and details. Maybe Jack also has better things to do. He has notified the forum operators of the change and his bio was done originally for him.

I just find it unbelievable that Kathy on another thread cannot understand the completely reasonable and rational response of serious researchers to the discovery of someone called LEN BRASIL who is posting here as LEN COLBY who is purporting to be such an expert that they are an 'advisor' on a 'peer reviewed' journal no less while at the same time Jack White who has been a generous and serious researcher in these areas since 1963 is required to fix his link or be banned like a naughty school boy who has not got matching socks. It has not escaped my notice either that Evan has been trying to get a response from Jack about something and this has not been forthcoming from Jack. It could be interpreted that Evan is just p***ed off with Jack and is now using any excuse to throw his weight around to punish Jack. Like I said it may be within the 'rules' of this forum but Jack and others are treated differently.

Speaking of responses, I sent a PM to Evan about the partiality happening on this site about a week or two ago and not even a courtesy acknowledgment from you Evan. The issues go back before I was a member of this forum. While Steve Turner pointed out if one were to look back through a particular post it would be apparent who started the trouble. Well, as was eloquently pointed out by Peter Lemkin (who seems to have disappeared from the forum?) the trouble started well before that topic and has many facets. Moderation is applied arbitrarily and with partiality for some and against others.

David Guyatt I would love to join your forum if you are still offering to set one up. I fully support the sentiments expressed by Charles Drago. I have had so many emails from people on this forum who have complained bitterly about the slant of the moderation actions of certain members and the loss of good research/ers. John, you do have a problem here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...