It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

page: 116
160
<< 113  114  115    117  118  119 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: firerescue

The only simulator that Hani Hanjour was known to gave trained on was the 737 simulator. An aircraft with a totally different cockpit than the 757. he is alleged to have piloted on 911. If anything his training would have confused him.



All newer twin engine Boeing flightdecks are of similar design and layout.
Since the Flight Management Systems are pretty much the same a B737 trained pilot should have no problem taking over mid flight as the hijackers did.
If anything the B757 systems are more automated than on the B737, and easier to operate.




posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ivar_Karlsen

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: firerescue

The only simulator that Hani Hanjour was known to gave trained on was the 737 simulator. An aircraft with a totally different cockpit than the 757. he is alleged to have piloted on 911. If anything his training would have confused him.



All newer twin engine Boeing flightdecks are of similar design and layout.
Since the Flight Management Systems are pretty much the same a B737 trained pilot should have no problem taking over mid flight as the hijackers did.
If anything the B757 systems are more automated than on the B737, and easier to operate.


The 737 is a 1970's ancient aircraft. It has a totally different cockpit. Not to mention the speed the plane was flying at.

All non shills look at the video at 58 minutes for a look at the cockpits. Most of the details of the Pentagon starts at 50 minutes.




posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith




The 737 is a 1970's ancient aircraft. It has a totally different cockpit. Not to mention the speed the plane was flying at.

So your conclusion is that all the 737's in 2001 were equipped with 30 year old avionics and the simulators reflected that ?
To use your narrow thinking The actual planes were 767's built in the early 80's, so they were only 10 years apart in cockpits.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent




So your conclusion is that all the 737's in 2001 were equipped with 30 year old avionics and the simulators reflected that ?


Once the plane is designed they do not change the layout. Some of the instruments may have slight modifications but that is all. They are forced to use the same instrument part numbers.

I am a professional who has been working on aircraft instruments for decades. Listen to the experts on the video and elsewhere.

edit on 12-6-2016 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Cockpit layout for 737 and the 757/767 are very similar

This is why hijackers selected flights which flew Boeing 757/767 .......



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith




The 737 is a 1970's ancient aircraft. It has a totally different cockpit. Not to mention the speed the plane was flying at.


So why is Boeing still building them..??

Boeing has been upgrading the aircraft every few years with new models

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: samkent
I am a professional who has been working on aircraft instruments for decades.


And and yet you do not know that the B737 from 1998 and on have glass cockpit?



And B757/767




posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith




I am a professional who has been working on aircraft instruments for decades.

Likely not otherwise you would not be making ridiculous statements like the kind you have made.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Let me conclude this funny... 'debate':

People who don't buy retarded kamikaze pilot comparisions must be the ones adding ridiculous statements to this thread and the qualification of your fellow poster is clear as day, thanks to that shiny crystal ball of yours.

Err... I'm Not Sure, but that surely sounds like sheer idiocracy to me. Yeah. Better stick to lame personal attacks, there's no credibility left by now. Anybody with valuable information at hand wouldn't resort to BS tactics from the gubermint shills textbook to get such a simple point across.

And to drive it home, let's see how 'easy' it would've been for said kamikaze (non)pilots to steer an airliner close to max speed: (at 1:07:06 in the clip)



This is ATS, put up or shut up maybe?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ivar_Karlsen

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: samkent
I am a professional who has been working on aircraft instruments for decades.


And and yet you do not know that the B737 from 1998 and on have glass cockpit?


Obviously they are a "internet professional", who has watched a youtube video, so obviously they are a "professional"!



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Good thing is, we're not talking about a guy who wasn't allowed to fly his Cessna solo...

Wait, we are! whats the fuzz about then? Somebody failed to mention glass-cockpits and thus his reputation is tarnished and no further debate feasible? Nice try though! Kinda funny to see you aiming for ATSliens and not for the facts presented, really great to witness such a 'professional' approach to this... 'debate'.
If said ytube clip would've been full of it you folks wouldn't have a hard time to debunk it. Would you?

May I speak to your superior now, please? We could use some intelligent replies for our 9/11 forums and less OT madness would be nice. Thanks in advance and say hello to your boss from me, bruce!



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion




Good thing is, we're not talking about a guy who wasn't allowed to fly his Cessna solo...


Flight instructor did not want to rent one of the hijackers a plane was do to his lack of understanding English .....



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: firerescue



“couldn’t believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had.” A former employee says, “I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”


Carry on, please!



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: hellobruce

Good thing is, we're not talking about a guy who wasn't allowed to fly his Cessna solo...

Wait, we are! whats the fuzz about then? Somebody failed to mention glass-cockpits and thus his reputation is tarnished and no further debate feasible? Nice try though! Kinda funny to see you aiming for ATSliens and not for the facts presented, really great to witness such a 'professional' approach to this... 'debate'.
If said ytube clip would've been full of it you folks wouldn't have a hard time to debunk it. Would you?

May I speak to your superior now, please? We could use some intelligent replies for our 9/11 forums and less OT madness would be nice. Thanks in advance and say hello to your boss from me, bruce!



They've been upgrading to ARINC 429 and other formats but the controls are still in different positions. And at those high speeds. Laughable.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ivar_Karlsen

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: firerescue

The only simulator that Hani Hanjour was known to gave trained on was the 737 simulator. An aircraft with a totally different cockpit than the 757. he is alleged to have piloted on 911. If anything his training would have confused him.



All newer twin engine Boeing flightdecks are of similar design and layout.
Since the Flight Management Systems are pretty much the same a B737 trained pilot should have no problem taking over mid flight as the hijackers did.
If anything the B757 systems are more automated than on the B737, and easier to operate.


I suppose that's why the FAA requires separate type ratings for the 737 and 757?

There were only about 2 or 3 instructors on the record who had flown with Hanjour, and they all said the same thing--he was an incompetent pilot.

You have chosen an absurd position, an indefensible position.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander




There were only about 2 or 3 instructors on the record who had flown with Hanjour, and they all said the same thing--he was an incompetent pilot.

But did any of them say he was so bad he couldn't crash into a building ?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

As a rule I don't respond to absurd or stupid questions, but I will make an exception.

I don't think any of the serious questioners asked that question Sam.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander




There were only about 2 or 3 instructors on the record who had flown with Hanjour, and they all said the same thing--he was an incompetent pilot.

But did any of them say he was so bad he couldn't crash into a building ?


Not at 500 knots and that particular maneuver.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander




There were only about 2 or 3 instructors on the record who had flown with Hanjour, and they all said the same thing--he was an incompetent pilot.

But did any of them say he was so bad he couldn't crash into a building ?


Not at 500 knots and that particular maneuver.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Not at 500 knots and that particular maneuver.


It was not a hard maneuver, nor a small building so not hard to crash into it, especially for a commercial pilot!



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 113  114  115    117  118  119 >>

log in

join