FAO Friar Tuck III

YOu recently asserted that Hanjour could not have flown the attack
against the Pentagon because the turn flown prior to the final
approach was of too small a circumference.
As has been proven, you have no idea what the circumference of that
turn was.
Do you see the logical failure in your assertion?

Similarly, you claimed the turn would have risked a "death spiral",
though this only happens whan a pilot gets disorientated in instrument
weather conditions. 11/9 over Washington was a clear , sunny day.
Do you see the logical failure in your assertion?

Similarly, you claim that turning a Cessna and turning a larger
aircraft are significantly different operations requiring vastly
different levels of skill. What are your qualifications for making
such an assertion, especially seeing as it flies in the face of
aerodynamics?

Lastly, you claim ground effect would have been a problem. Please
explain how you think ground effect wodul have been a problem and how
it wodl have prevented a CPL, like Hanjour, from flying into a great
big building.

TIA
/Parris
.