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.

 

A few points about 9/11

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I'm a new member but I have done a lot of research on 9/11 and would just like to say a few things on this subject....
I live in the U.K. and watched the event as it unfolded live on all the news channels.
I did not know about Afganistan or the taliban or bin Ladin or about any of the factors that were represented after the event , I do now and this event was the trigger that got me interested in conspiracy theory in the first place as it was blatantly obvious that the truth was not being told by mainstream media as we can all agree .......
My research about this conspiracy has led me to these conclusions. I will list what I believe to be true conspiracy fact and these are the things that I feel are undisputable and need to be cleared up to get the real answer to what went on that day.....
1. It was a planned event, the U.S. gov did not work hand in hand with the hijackers but they more or less let it happen and they did have prior knowlege and could if they wanted to, stop the hijackers in their tracks...
2. The reason they let it happen was because the neoconservatives run that country now and like pearl harbour needed it to happen (e.g. Northwoods document )
3. The footage of the first plane was not planned, as far as I can tell it is unlikely to me that it was a boeing ......
4. The footage from the second plane WAS planned and executed with success for the neocons by success I mean the explosion was pure hollywood and they had got their image of terror that they needed....
5. The second plane ? what are the weird bumps on the belly of the plane , what is the flash seen from every angle a split second before impact , I believe this plane was a military boeing not a commercial airliner which begs the questions was it a drone , where are the passengers etc.....
6. How could a bunch of hijackers with hardly any training fly at such speeds and hit the target , this for me is highly unlikely as those boeings handle like crap at high speed and much skill would be needed to make THAT plane hit THAT target at THAT speed....
7.It was a controlled demolition that brought the towers down.
8.The pentagon , is very tricky to decipher what went on there but the fact is the footage they have locked away holds without any doubt the truth e.g. the gas station footage why won't they release it? no reason exists why they will not let that be seen , the conflicting reports of what was in the air around the pentagon e.g. was it a F-16 firing a rocket , was it a boeing , was it a rocket the answers cannot be deciphered from the info we all have I'm afraid.....
9. the 4th plane after a lot of researching going back and forth on if it was possible for mobile phones to work at that speed and distance. I think it is quite possible that the messages are real maybe using the airplane phone the whole lets roll thing is hard to prove or dissprove I think we can all agree on that....
Please bear in mind that I am just giving my 2 pence worth and what my gut feeling is. As I think most of you may agree our gut feeling is what drives us all to seek out what we believe is the truth....
Any responses would be greatly appreciated. I have just skimmed over what I know because I am going to the flicks and also am not sure how big I could make my post as a newbie , but I have done loads of research (3-4yrs worth) on this and other conspiracies and I feel I know my stuff as I know all of you do, I will check back soon ......
Thanks for reading this....




posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
The possiblity of a remote-controlled airliner being flown into a building is very possible. This is due to the fact that the Flight Control System in a Boeing 757 or a 767 could be overridden by an outside controller is a very big reality. It would be easy for someone in either an E-3 Orion or a militarized version of a Boeing 767 to override the flight controls of a jetliner. This is a very scary reality which is a fact that it can happen.
Even European flag carrier Lufthansa was aware of the remote controls. They didn't want any of their hijacked planes being rescued illegaly by American armed forces. This in turn led Lufthansa to get rid of the Flight Control System that their Boeings had.

As to what hit the Pentagon, that can be a toss up because of my way of looking at it. It might have been a Boeing 757 that struck the side of the building. I myself am leaning to the possiblity that it could have been either a drone, such as Global Hawk or a Predator drone, that actually struck the side of the Pentagon. I have looked at the CCTV footage that "shows" the supposed Boeing 757 stiking the Pentagon. What gives the size of the aircraft away is that there were no skidmarks in the grass where it crashed. The speed that the object was travelling was WAY to fast to be a civilian airliner. It could be possible that the aircraft was a Navy S3 Viking Surveillance aircraft mocked up to look like an American Airlines jet.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by snooperboy

I did not know about Afganistan or the taliban or bin Ladin or about any of the factors that were represented after the event :


To learn more about the Taliban, pick up these two books (both written prior to 9/11): Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, by Ahmed Rashid and Fundamentalism Reborn?: Afghanistan and the Taliban, edited by William Maley.



1. It was a planned event, the U.S. gov did not work hand in hand with the hijackers but they more or less let it happen and they did have prior knowlege and could if they wanted to, stop the hijackers in their tracks...


If there is any government involvement, I think the first part of this is the most likely. That's the one I can readily believe as being possible, plausible and perhaps likely.



5. The second plane ? what are the weird bumps on the belly of the plane , what is the flash seen from every angle a split second before impact , I believe this plane was a military boeing not a commercial airliner which begs the questions was it a drone , where are the passengers etc...


The "weird bumps" were explained in several threads. As for the flashes...I saw the same footage as you, and came to the conclusion that it was - very simply - the passenger plane, complete with passengers, as reported.



..
6. How could a bunch of hijackers with hardly any training fly at such speeds and hit the target , this for me is highly unlikely as those boeings handle like crap at high speed and much skill would be needed to make THAT plane hit THAT target at THAT speed....


Reposted from a previous effort I made


Atta already had a pilot's license before he started retraining in the US.

Jarrah also had a license in Germany, and obtained a license to fly single-engine craft in the US.

Al Shehhi graduated from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in 1997 with a bachelor's degree in aeronautical science, the university's commercial pilot training degree, and is listed as having a commercial pilot's license.

Hanjour - the admitted "Unlikeliest To Have Ability To Perform Aeronautical Trickery" candidate - is really the only one ringing any warning bells. Sure, he obtained a commercial license - which has been verified several times - but even his instructors questioned the validity of the license before the attacks, but found nothing untoward.

So in short - yes, these men could (legally, to boot) fly planes. The degree of skill involved varied, but it'd be inaccurate to lump them all under the "couldn't fly a kite, let alone a jet" category.

More to the point, we've seen numerous confirmations (from independent sources such as private pilots, foreign professional pilots, etc etc as well as US-based opinions stating the same) that a) those particular jets don't actually take much beyond basic piloting skills to direct and fly; the difficulty would be in take-off and landing and b) it's a fallacy that none of the alleged hijackers were unable to fly. That wasn't the case; realistically, the only real doubt in terms of ability would rest on Hani Hanjour, the alleged Pentagon pilot.




8.The pentagon (snippetysnip)..... e.g. was it a F-16 firing a rocket , was it a boeing , was it a rocket the answers cannot be deciphered from the info we all have I'm afraid.....


I do suggest reading the other pertinent threads which cover the issue; in particular there's a huge thread by Catherder, and even if you don't agree with Catherder's conclusions relating to the Pentagon crash, the information contained therein does shed a lot of light on the issue.


I think it is quite possible that the messages are real maybe using the airplane phone the whole lets roll thing is hard to prove or dissprove I think we can all agree on that....


Agreed. I've used a cellphone and the inflight airphone at cruising speeds.

In another post I also did a quick timeline; this might help, too:

From the various sources already quoted, I've tried to put it together in one

The first two military interceptors, F-15 Eagles from Otis AFB in Massachusetts, airborne at 8:52 am, were too late to do anything about the second jet heading for the Trade Center or a third heading toward the Pentagon.

8:38 am: Boston air traffic center notifies NORAD that AA flight 11 has been hijacked.

8:43 am: FAA notifies NORAD that UA flight 175 has been hijacked.

8:44 am: Otis Air National Guard Base in Mass. orders to fighters scrambled.

8:46 am: AA flight 11 strikes the World Trade Center's north tower

It is true that NORAD was warned about the hijacking of the flights that hit the World Trade Center, both taking off from Boston, long before dispatching aircraft near Washington DC. But that is beside the point, as at that time there was no known threat to the capital area; only to New York.

At this time, flight 77 has just left Dulles in DC (8:22), and is probably not yet hijacked. Why would anything in DC be scrambled at all at this point?

9:10 am: (approximate time) UA flight 77 begins to fly back towards the capital, around 10 minutes after the transponder has been turned off.

9:25 am: FAA notifies NORAD that UA flight 77 may have been hijacked.

9:27 am: (approximate time) NORAD orders jets scrambled from Langley AFB in Virginia to head to intercept UA flight 77.

9:35 am: Three F-16 Fighting Falcons take off from Langley AFB headed toward Washington area.

9:37 am: AA flight 77 is lost from radar screens.

9:38 am: AA flight 77 (allegedly) strikes the Pentagon.

We've got to remember that prior to this there was no automatic signal sent to NORAD or NEADS if an aircraft went off-course. At that time the FAA and/or ATC had to physically make the call to NORAD.

Anyway - this is what we know: Mistakes were made, confusion reigned, there were numerous errors in protocol, and it was unique response to a unique situation; none of this is proof of a conspiracy or cover-up. And that's not saying there wasn't a cover-up; only that these events themselves do not prove anything of that nature.

HTH to start with



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I maybe didn't explain myself to well but I am familiar with most of the posts about this subject on ATS and other sites. I have been a long time lurker on ATS and have always respected the info given by its members as both of the posts have proven you all really know you're stuff , this was my first real post and I didn't want to get too technical just give a brief outline on this subject and what I felt was true but I was getting pushed for time and decided just to wrap it up , leaving out a lot of things but thanks again guys for taking the time to give some excellent info.....



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
might make a few points if i may.

I will list what I believe to be true conspiracy fact and these are the things that I feel are undisputable

there is a difference between fact and opinion, ats is full of opinion, much to the displeasure of those who would like only to have guaranteed facts in their lives. But thats just the way it is, importantly they do not claim them to be facts. if ya gonna do that you gotta prove it.
You claim to have 'done the research,' so are those mearly opinions or do you have some interesting evidence to share to prove them as facts.

For example;
4. The footage from the second plane WAS planned and executed with success for the neocons.
7. It was a controlled demolition that brought the towers down.


4. although im sure it was, any proof? or just op ed.
7. anything new on this? there is a big debate on it.

on point 6.
its my opinion that this is best worked on in the pentagon incident. i find it strange that pilots have said that you couldnt hit the towers, because im sure that i could. but certainly the pentagon strike is the most extreme manouver by far imo, by concentrating on that you could get a long way into cracking a proper whole in the story.

[edit on 14-8-2005 by AdamJ]



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   


More to the point, we've seen numerous confirmations (from independent sources such as private pilots, foreign professional pilots, etc etc as well as US-based opinions stating the same) that a) those particular jets don't actually take much beyond basic piloting skills to direct and fly; the difficulty would be in take-off and landing and b) it's a fallacy that none of the alleged hijackers were unable to fly. That wasn't the case; realistically, the only real doubt in terms of ability would rest on Hani Hanjour, the alleged Pentagon pilot.


First just a little background. My father was a jump master sargeant in the 82nd airborne. He dropped behind enemy lines in Korea. After the war he was a sport parachute jumper. I spent every weekend since I was a child riding in Cessna 182's with the door removed. Two of my cousins owned airplanes all of ther lives. One of the built them as a hobby in his polebarn. I have spent many hours with them teaching me the finer art of aerobatics. They both died putting on a private aerobatic show at a family reuinion some years back. A day does not go by that I do not think about airplanes. Cant keep my eye from the circling sky, tongue tied twisted just an earth bound misfit I. Quoted from the song, learning to fly. I know aerobatics.

Here there is the problem. Yes to fly a passenger jet in normal flight circomstances it is an easy aircraft( stick and rudder wise) to fly. This is a differnt story though when you take this aircraft out of its normal flight envelope. Let me try and explain this.

This aircraft has a wingloading that is made for optimal weight lifting and fuel efficiancy. Its ailerons, verticle stabelizor and rudder are not ery large compared to let say an aerobatic aircraft like an Exrtra 200. Its airfiol is also very different, it is made for transportaton, like the difference between a double decker bus, and a Lamboghini Daiblo.

You can train someone to fly this aircraft quite easily. In fact most people that can drive a car can do a halfway decent turn with a little coaching. To make an aircraft like the 767 just to fly above the deck (low altitude) at a high airspeed is very hard to do. This thing will fight you every step of the way to climb. The nose will want to go up no matter what you do. Even with trimming the flight it will want to go up. You drop the nose a little at that altitude ( the air is much thicker) and that baby will overspeed on you in a heartbeat.

Hard turning manuvuers the thing will want to lose altitude big time. It will also slip (kind of like all four wheels of you car does on ice) and not want to do the turn. The approach to the towers and the hard turns for correction all while blazing in at over 500 knots in that aircraft would be a mighty handfull for a military jet jock. It would take a LOT of stick and rudder time, doing these type of manuvuers to be able to even come close to what was done that day.

Nearly impossible for an experienced jet jock. Impossible for a pilot that has lots of stick time in normal flight. No way for some guys comming out of flight school. Flight 11 was just above the NYC skyline, having to do sharp corrections without losing even a few feet of altitude. Same with flight 175, but that one was even more intense for at the last split second it did a HARD turn to the left just before hitting the building. The hardest and most impossible manuvuer was the Pentagon. A diving 270 degree turn, with a pull out right on the deck.

No way, not in a million years. You all who believe the story have been duped by doublespeak made to fit the masses.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
I can't send p.m yet so I will just say this..
The footage of the collapse of the towers is the best piece of evidence there is on that subject , there is no way that a weight displacement two thirds up can make a building fall in that way naturally but for the two towers to fall in exactly the same way after an external force was applied in two different positions just does not make any sense, the heat in the towers that supposedly melted the struts causing a pack of cards effect on the struts allowing the building to fall in on itself , is in my opinion fantasy as the heat build up was not the same in both towers and as we know the second tower ( which fell first ) the force of the explosion was dissipated into the atmosphere and therefore the heat build up was severely compromised because of the angle that the plane hit and the lack of damage caused to the inner struts meant this was the most unlikely of the two towers to fall, plus you add into the mix wtc 7 which suffered no damage at all and collapsed , I know all this has been discused a great length and I am not trying to present any new evidence just simply get down what I think .....
Cheers



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   
My three passions in life are, flying airplanes, putting out fires, and riding really fast motorcycles( the last one has nothing to do with anything here I just love it, its like low altitude flying but more dangerous). Growing up I was such a patriot ( I still am but not a blind patriot) my older bother used to say: You are such a patriot it makes me sick. When anyone asked me my favorite color, I would say with pride "red white and blue, just like old glory!" I used to sing the national anthem to my brother to drive him nuts. I loved America, and still do love her.

I guess the point I am making is the facts of 9/11 is a very hard pill to swallow. It was hard for me too, but with my background with airplanes and firefighting, and quite a few other unique things about me. About 6 month after 9/11, no matter how hard I fought it, I knew most things I thought were true, were a lie. It was almost like my whole life was a lie. They stole my dream.

No one except me, my wife and God can fathom how much this US government broke my heart. Broke is not the right word. Shattered beyond repair is more like it. I have to say the pledge of allegence everytime we have firehouse meetings. I have to force myself from crying in front of all those brave men and women everytime.

I wish my life had not taken this path that lead me to have such a unique background to put it all together. I will never ever be the same again.

Remember those brave Firefighters, the 343 that died in there turnout gear. Never forget, never forgive.







[edit on 14-8-2005 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
The possiblity of a remote-controlled airliner being flown into a building is very possible.


Yep thats very probable, look what they were able to do remotely in 1984 www.dfrc.nasa.gov... (Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft)



[edit on 2005-8-15 by zer69]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Most people that know anything about airplanes, know that the automatic systems are powerfull enough to fly planes. Military aircraft can even land on their own i believe, ie; no need for someone in the hotseat, and they have been able to do it for some time.
So im entirley convinced that the aircraft could have been controlled you do not necessaraly need someone in the cockpit.

The point is really though, those aircraft did hit the towers and they did it in the way that was just describe as difficult, yet surely the easiest place to fly the planes is inside the cockpit, unless you are pulling some high-g stuff. Dont know how those aircrafts structure could handle high-g, but thats an aside.
If the manouver they perofrmed was so difficult does it not make it more likely that the person perfoming it actually inside the plane not some remote location?
To me that indicates that neither might be true, quite possibly homing beacons or some such technology was employed somehow.
The pentagon approach story just might as well be a lie, the only conclusion that can be draw is that whoever was flying cant have had a specific target, other than hitting something pentagon related. They cant have planned to hit specifically where they did, because the manouver they performed to do it was unnecessaraly difficult.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by AdamJ]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Even professional pilots have said that those planes were taken beyond their software limit. That is why Lufthansa got rid of the FCS's on there aircraft.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
My three passions in life are, flying airplanes, putting out fires, and riding really fast motorcycles( the last one has nothing to do with anything here I just love it, its like low altitude flying but more dangerous). Growing up I was such a patriot ( I still am but not a blind patriot) my older bother used to say: You are such a patriot it makes me sick. When anyone asked me my favorite color, I would say with pride "red white and blue, just like old glory!" I used to sing the national anthem to my brother to drive him nuts. I loved America, and still do love her.

I guess the point I am making is the facts of 9/11 is a very hard pill to swallow. It was hard for me too, but with my background with airplanes and firefighting, and quite a few other unique things about me. About 6 month after 9/11, no matter how hard I fought it, I knew most things I thought were true, were a lie. It was almost like my whole life was a lie. They stole my dream.

No one except me, my wife and God can fathom how much this US government broke my heart. Broke is not the right word. Shattered beyond repair is more like it. I have to say the pledge of allegence everytime we have firehouse meetings. I have to force myself from crying in front of all those brave men and women everytime.

I wish my life had not taken this path that lead me to have such a unique background to put it all together. I will never ever be the same again.

Remember those brave Firefighters, the 343 that died in there turnout gear. Never forget, never forgive.

[edit on 14-8-2005 by LoneGunMan]


I hear you on that my friend. I too feel like a rock hit me. I think that's why so many people keep fighting the reality & insist on believing the official story. It's just so hard to believe a Pear Harbor or Reichstag could happen in our lifetime. We feel so betrayed and still we can't do anything about it. I'ts like you've been in a marriage for 20-30 years and all of a sudden find out your spouse had cheated on you. The betrayal is so overwhelming and devastating that most people don't want to believe it could happen to them, so they do everything they can to prove it didn't happen and continue to live in denial. But there are so many discrepancies in the official story it's down right pitiful not to question it. What gets me frustrated now that I've done some research like you, is that we have a Congress who also is living in denial and refuses to investigate the matter further. That 9/11 report was so full of holes the water drained out in less than a day. But even more than that is to know the people fell for Bush's lies and voted him in again. Ok, I'm getting into politics here, so maybe I should stop...but it all ties in together, doesn't it? 9/11 was the PNAC boys Operation Northwoods and it's gotten me almost to the point of wanting to leave this country until they're all out of office. Honestly, I used to be able to hold my head high, but knowing how many people around the world hate us now, I'm embarrased to be an American. We must hold the villians accountable who were complicite in allowing 9/11 to take place. We the people of the US need to keep contacting and pushing our Congressional members with emails, faxes and phone calls and remind them they'll get no votes in 2006 if they don't find their backbones. The entire House is coming up for re-election as well as many members of the Senate. Cynthia McKinny has started to re-open an investigation, but in order for her to move forward, other members must support her this time. Sweeping the biggest catastropy this world has ever seen under the rug will damage our country forever....ok, changes subject...whew! at least I got that out of my system!



MOTIVES...


From the moment he took office, Bush made noises about "finishing the job his father started."


www.time.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">NEW YORK TIMES

www.hereinreality.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">INSIDER TRADING

MEANS..

www.rense.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">REMOTE CONTROL ANTENNA VERIFIED

geocities.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">PRIOR TEST TRIALS?

www.lectlaw.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">FIRST ATTEMPT FAILED

OPPORTUNITY...

www.thenewamerican.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">US INTELLIGENCE KNEW

www.fromthewilderness.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">MORE RED FLAGS

www.apfn.net..." target="_blank" class="postlink">ADVANCED WARNINGS



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by snooperboy
I'm a new member but I have done a lot of research on 9/11 and would just like to say a few things on this subject....
I live in the U.K. and watched the event as it unfolded live on all the news channels.
I did not know about Afganistan or the taliban or bin Ladin or about any of the factors that were represented after the event , I do now and this event was the trigger that got me interested in conspiracy theory in the first place as it was blatantly obvious that the truth was not being told by mainstream media as we can all agree .......
My research about this conspiracy has led me to these conclusions. I will list what I believe to be true conspiracy fact and these are the things that I feel are undisputable and need to be cleared up to get the real answer to what went on that day.....
1. It was a planned event, the U.S. gov did not work hand in hand with the hijackers but they more or less let it happen and they did have prior knowlege and could if they wanted to, stop the hijackers in their tracks...
2. The reason they let it happen was because the neoconservatives run that country now and like pearl harbour needed it to happen (e.g. Northwoods document )
3. The footage of the first plane was not planned, as far as I can tell it is unlikely to me that it was a boeing ......
4. The footage from the second plane WAS planned and executed with success for the neocons by success I mean the explosion was pure hollywood and they had got their image of terror that they needed....
5. The second plane ? what are the weird bumps on the belly of the plane , what is the flash seen from every angle a split second before impact , I believe this plane was a military boeing not a commercial airliner which begs the questions was it a drone , where are the passengers etc.....
6. How could a bunch of hijackers with hardly any training fly at such speeds and hit the target , this for me is highly unlikely as those boeings handle like crap at high speed and much skill would be needed to make THAT plane hit THAT target at THAT speed....
7.It was a controlled demolition that brought the towers down.
8.The pentagon , is very tricky to decipher what went on there but the fact is the footage they have locked away holds without any doubt the truth e.g. the gas station footage why won't they release it? no reason exists why they will not let that be seen , the conflicting reports of what was in the air around the pentagon e.g. was it a F-16 firing a rocket , was it a boeing , was it a rocket the answers cannot be deciphered from the info we all have I'm afraid.....
9. the 4th plane after a lot of researching going back and forth on if it was possible for mobile phones to work at that speed and distance. I think it is quite possible that the messages are real maybe using the airplane phone the whole lets roll thing is hard to prove or dissprove I think we can all agree on that....
Please bear in mind that I am just giving my 2 pence worth and what my gut feeling is. As I think most of you may agree our gut feeling is what drives us all to seek out what we believe is the truth....
Any responses would be greatly appreciated. I have just skimmed over what I know because I am going to the flicks and also am not sure how big I could make my post as a newbie , but I have done loads of research (3-4yrs worth) on this and other conspiracies and I feel I know my stuff as I know all of you do, I will check back soon ......
Thanks for reading this....


You are contradicting your self with point 1 and 5,(well actually exactly point 1 doesnt go hand in hand with almost all your points) .

If it was a militairy airplane the goverment must be directly involved(and not like you suggest they only knew), or do you suggest that terrorist hijacked a militairy plain!???



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
LoneGunMan:

You have earned my first ever vote for the Way Above Top Secret Award for your last 2 posts, you bring up some good points and also more or less sum up my own feelings with:

"No one except me, my wife and God can fathom how much this US government broke my heart. Broke is not the right word. Shattered beyond repair is more like it."



[edit on 8/23/2005 by JKersteJr]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ
Most people that know anything about airplanes, know that the automatic systems are powerfull enough to fly planes. Military aircraft can even land on their own i believe, ie; no need for someone in the hotseat, and they have been able to do it for some time.
So im entirley convinced that the aircraft could have been controlled you do not necessaraly need someone in the cockpit.

The point is really though, those aircraft did hit the towers and they did it in the way that was just describe as difficult, yet surely the easiest place to fly the planes is inside the cockpit, unless you are pulling some high-g stuff. Dont know how those aircrafts structure could handle high-g, but thats an aside.
If the manouver they perofrmed was so difficult does it not make it more likely that the person perfoming it actually inside the plane not some remote location?


That's some really inaccurate stuff, except for some of the first part. I'll try to expand on your comments and hopefully clear up some misconceptions and affirm some of the comments incase you or anyone else is wondering what's true and what's untrue. It's pretty easy to get mislead when you read things online, especially from websites that have ulterior motives -- motives such as selling you books and videos -- the conspiracy racket is a multi-billion dollar industry incase you didn't know.


The new Boeing aircraft (757, 767, 777, 747-400) can all land, and fly automatically but they can't take off automatically. They are physically flown by the pilot up until 200 feet above ground level before the autopilot can be engaged. Conversely, the vast majority of landings are done through the Flight Management Computer (FMC) with the pilot and copilot manually initiating or confirming many steps of the landing and take off procedures (the FMC does play a role in takeoffs, but it is the pilot that is in complete control until he reaches 200 feet). This has made "incident" reports around the globe decrease dramatically (over 50% of plane crashes occur during the takeoff or landing and ~75% of all crashes are attributed to human error) -- the addition of the FMC systems means the pilots don't miss a step (such as forgetting to retract flaps or slats, ensuring they have the correct amount of fuel before takeoff, etc) and this has led to fewer incidents/crashes. However, even though all the new 7x7 craft are equipped with 'automatic landing systems' the way the Boeing 7x7 aircraft handle landings is largely dependant on the type of ground facilities available (what sort of ground guidance system (ILS) is in place at the airports they operate into and out of). The maintenance of the aerodrome must be very high and comply with ICAO standards.

But the FMC is not an autonomous 'entity' in any of these planes. For example when landing, the criteria for planning a good descent is to ensure the greatest comfort to the passengers with the least fuel burned. On a Boeing 777, all these are calculated by the Flight Management Computer (FMC). When the FMC is connected to the autopilot, the airplane would descend automatically provided there is prior clearance to leave the cruising level first. The Captain merely sets the initial level approved for the descent. As soon as the airplane reaches the computed descent point, the auto-throttle retards on its own. The pilots would monitor this automatic sequence and call out the action. Either pilot would acknowledge the call. So, even though this is an automatic action, both the pilots have to monitor that the automation is doing the right thing.

During flight, the FMC utilizes GPS to determine the aircraft's position. The information one gets from the GPS to determine the one’s exact location is derived from 24 satellites orbiting 11,000 nautical miles above the earth. These satellites are placed at 6 orbital planes with 4 on each plane (6x4=24). The GPS constellation are designed by engineers so that the GPS receivers can observe at least 5 satellites from anywhere on the earth. For normal navigation, a minimum of four satellites must be available and received to provide the position of the airplane. However, for landing approaches, where accuracy is of utmost importance, five satellites are needed.

The satellites broadcast signals that contain timing data, status data and satellite position. The airborne GPS receivers process the above signals for the exact location of the satellite and calculate how long it takes the signal to reach the receivers. The signals are processed through triangulation where the resultant airplane position is then determined. However, there is an error of between 100 to 200 feet, good enough for navigation at 35,000 feet but not good enough for precision landing onto airports. And not good enough to auto pilot you into a building.

Landing The newer Boeing craft are capable of landing very safely on autopilot even in zero visibility but it is not currently authorized. Why? The cost of maintaining the ground equipment is prohibitive and so the authorities reduced the criteria from zero visibility to 100 meters as the absolute minimum to land at the present time. These lower criteria also reduce the maintenance costs as imposed by the aviation authorities. This would have opened many Airports that would otherwise be shut down.

The Instrument Landing System (ILS) provides a very accurate and safe guidance for an airplane to land on a runway in any weather conditions. It positions the airplane very precisely to land safely in the most adverse situations where a pilot would have great difficulty doing so. Bearing in mind that, about 75 percent of accidents are due to human error and the landing phase is one of the most critical parts of a flight, air crashes have been reduced considerably when the ILS was introduced.

An auto landing process is achieved by an autopilot together with a flight director system. As the name suggests, the flight director directs where the plane go when the pilot or autopilot intend it to. To fly an ILS, the flight director would guide the airplane to land on a correct profile and towards the centerline of the runway by means of ground signals. In order to land safely, the airplane requires external feedbacks from the aerodrome.

Regarding the G forces -- viewing the videos of the aircraft coming in (especially the 2nd airliner), they were not pulling any significant G's, they were both pretty much flying level, the 2nd plane banked at the last part because it was off-course a bit and wouldn't have hit the tower (that's why it hit one half of the building and not in the middle like the 1st plane). Many sites claim that the 757 that hit the Pentagon was performing "remarkably tough" maneuvers, and pulling heavy G forces. That's very untrue -- the 757 that hit the Pentagon performed a 280 degree turn (original sources said 330, but the flight data recorder said 280), descending from ~9000 feet to ~2000 feet over a time span of almost 3 minutes. In essence, it pulled up to 0.5Gs -- nothing remarkable for an aircraft designed to take loads in excess of 2.5Gs, and then flew in a straight descending line towards the building. The 767 is also designed to withstand 2.5Gs without damage, there is no way either one of those 767s that hit the WTC towers were pulling even 1G... there just wasn't any sharp banking turns or up/down movement in their flight paths, I'd doubt they even pulled half a G. The first plane that hit was not turning at all during the last 30-60 seconds of its flight.

Both the 757 and 767 flight computers do not allow for heavy G loads under normal operation, this isn't because the aircraft can't handle multiple G forces, it's because FAA regulations (and internal airline rules) do not allow for excessive G forces on passenger air flights (it's about keeping passengers from injuries and/or puking because of the way you are flying your plane).


Originally posted by gimmefootball400 Even professional pilots have said that those planes were taken beyond their software limit. That is why Lufthansa got rid of the FCS's on there aircraft.


I've yet to see a real quote from a real airline pilot that says anything like that, the maneuvers were not anything incredible, but they were indeed outside of the software operations limits (for normal operation as a passenger airliner). Every actual 767 or 757 pilot I've seen comment on this has said the same thing: those planes did not perform any difficult or amazing maneuvers.

gimmefootball400 is also totally incorrect in saying that Lufthansa removed the flight computers from their aircraft (did he post this as a mistake or was it to intentionally mislead anyone reading this forum?). In reality, the "FSC" removed (replaced) from part of the Lufthansa fleet was the Fuel System Controller, which is located in both wings on many aircraft, as it was found to be faulty in a few different models and prone to clogging with sludge and difficult and costly to maintain, they did not remove the FMC (Flight Management Computer), huge difference!

Hope that clears up a few things for some people.



[edit on 24-8-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by AdamJ
Most people that know anything about airplanes, know that the automatic systems are powerfull enough to fly planes. Military aircraft can even land on their own i believe, ie; no need for someone in the hotseat, and they have been able to do it for some time.
So im entirley convinced that the aircraft could have been controlled you do not necessaraly need someone in the cockpit.

The point is really though, those aircraft did hit the towers and they did it in the way that was just describe as difficult, yet surely the easiest place to fly the planes is inside the cockpit, unless you are pulling some high-g stuff. Dont know how those aircrafts structure could handle high-g, but thats an aside.
If the manouver they perofrmed was so difficult does it not make it more likely that the person perfoming it actually inside the plane not some remote location?


That's some really inaccurate stuff, except for some of the first part. I'll try to expand on your comments and hopefully clear up some misconceptions and affirm some of the comments incase you or anyone else is wondering what's true and what's untrue. It's pretty easy to get mislead when you read things online, especially from websites that have ulterior motives -- motives such as selling you books and videos -- the conspiracy racket is a multi-billion dollar industry incase you didn't know.


[edit on 24-8-2005 by CatHerder]


well thanx for expanding on that, i learnt some stuff. I dont see how what i said is inaccurate though. It didnt come from any conspiracy site if thats what you think.
The second paragraph is just speculation because people are saying pilots said it was a difficult manouver, but it didnt look it to me. I wasnt speculating on what the actual g-force was or making any claims on whether it was a diffiult manouver.
Just to clear it up i didnt say that the aircraft could take off on its own, but it wouldnt suprise me if the military had developed a system to do it, even with 747s.
Presumeably the drone aircraft they use can take off automatically, even if they dont, im sure a system could have been developed.

Also it is my opinion that everyone has a motive, if the conspiracy industry is multi-million dollar, or even billion dollar, then what is the oil industry? or the security industry? or the construction industry?
I think money is a weak argument against conspiracies, most conspiracy people dont make a great deal off doing it and its not generally their primrary motivation



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I suggest you all take 4 hours of your life and watch the National Geographic Special on Inside 9/11.

Please watch it,

1. it shows the events that led up to 9/11, and the people behind it.
2. We knew something was coming, but not when.
3. Remote control, where are the passengers?
4. The initial blast destoryed the fireproffing, causing the steel to basically melt, and the towers fell.
5. IN the documentary it explains 3 explosions, that occured WHEN THE PLANES HIT and fuel was sent down the elevators, causing explosions on the 30'3 and 70's floors.
6. Listen to the tapes of the NYC flights, and here the response from the Airline.. they did not know what to do, and by the time the F-15's were scrambled, just a half hour later, the transponder was off and the plane was already minutes away from the first tower.
7. It is difficult to fly a large aircraft, and the near miss at the Pentagon shows that, He almost drilled it into the ground. NOw if these were remote controlled, do you not think they would have created more damage, rather than less?

8. I truly beleive that we did shoot down that plane in PA. IT was ordered, and it was done.

Watch the special and when you relive those few moments, you will lose your breath and cry. We will all remember where we were that day and hte frantic calls home.

www.nationalgeographic.com...


and here is a good timeline......

www.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
esdad71,

Are you kidding me??

First of all I severely dislike any program that attempts to "debunk" anything - because you have your bias right there.

Secondly, point number 5 seems really a stretch - not impossible maybe - but surely doesn't look good when viewed using the principle of Ocam's Razor.

Thridly, there is significant evidence that the fire was out (or nearly out) right after the initial explosions - you can see the pictures of people looking out the massive holes in the building - and this puts point number 4 in serious jeopardy.

The fact that the fire fighter communication tapes and the supposedly "melted" steel have been classified and/or destroyed by the U.S. Govt. is mighty suspicious.

Not to mention that this has never ever occured before in any other burning building, and that scientists haven't reproduced this effect in the lab for the public, to answer the many questions regarding it.

I suggest you watch some of Alex Jones documentaries as well if you want to have an informed opinion - please know that these main stream media releases wouldn't be allowed if they didn't support the offical story.

Deny Ignorance! (and don't jump to conclusions so quickly young padwan)



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I suggest you all take 4 hours of your life and watch the National Geographic Special on Inside 9/11.



I watched it, it was very informative, I've been saying all along that our Government had nothing to do with it.

They might have had warning about an attack, but nothing "solid", so there was no way to stop it.

There are always going to be people who just want to make a conspiracy out of every event in life that takes place... here we've gathered a good majority of them and we call it ATS





[edit on 25-8-2005 by elevatedone]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
esdad71,

Deny Ignorance! (and don't jump to conclusions so quickly young padwan)


awwww..... shame shame shame.... name calling, name calling....




TruthM.... you don't like programs that "debunk", but you're on a conspiracy site using your own reasoning and Alex Jones' to "debunk"... hmmm thats funny to me....







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join