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.

 

Why there were no planes at the WTC

page: 25
2
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   




thats what I call an ass wooping lol




posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord




Now... it's certainly possible for people to change their mind, I know I have regarding 9/11 events quite a few times. But John's been active on that forum for quite some time, and there are only two threads where both "9/11" and "hologram" appear... but John must not have noticed since we don't have the benefit of his comments on this topic within another context.



I'm not following you here SO when you say "....but John must not have noticed since we don't have the benefit of his comments on this topic within another context...." Do you mean that I made those posts in the same time frame?

Could you please clarify that comment? Thanks



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Mr. John Lear, what do you think or know of what happened with the 10-11-06 New York City "plane crash" into a building?
It seemed as though you have overlooked my posting from yesterday in which I have asked you this same question.
I have created a thread about this here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
From the footage, the plane in question appears to not hit the building but actually travel away from the buildings just above the water on the left side of the screen:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Do you mean that I made those posts in the same time frame?


No... it's clear that you didn't.

However, at one point you called on your extensive piloting experince to say:

August 25, 2004
"As I mentioned on Art's show last March it would have been a simple matter to train a non-pilot"

Which seems to contradict:

October 3, 2006
I have written extensively about the skill required to fly a Boeing 767 and hit the WTC at 400 to 500 kts. ... I categorically state that it is impossible, not unlikely, but impossible for a pilot with the limited skill of those who allegedly flew the aircraft to have hit the WTC.


While I can certainly understand someone (like myself) altering their perception of 9/11-related conspiracies because of new or improved evidence, this one has me somewhat confused.

What was it in your aviation experience that caused such a fundamental shift in thinking? The known flight path of the planes hitting the WTC has not changed in that time, yet your opinion has evolved from "very easy" to "impossible". I would have thought that someone with your deservedly well-regarded aviation background would have a consistent opinion on the matter.

And since a portion of the no-plane/hologram theory relies on the improbability (or unreliability) of the pilots... I think this relates to the discussion.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord



What was it in your aviation experience that caused such a fundamental shift in thinking? The known flight path of the planes hitting the WTC has not changed in that time, yet your opinion has evolved from "very easy" to "impossible". I would have thought that someone with your deservedly well-regarded aviation background would have a consistent opinion on the matter.


The statement was predicated on the use of simulators for training. Since no simulator operator (American, United etc) has come forward since I made that statement to say that they leased their simulator to arab hijackers for training we can eliminate the use of simulators. Unless you want to consider Israel. Israel operates the Boeing 757 and/or the Boeing 767 (same simulator) but I don't know if they have one or if they contract their training.

If we eliminate the simulator as a training aid then it becomes impossible to train the pilots in flying the profile.

I am not locked into any one opinion on anything as I have stated many times. There has been no shift in my fundamental thinking that our government planned and carried out 911, that there wasn't any aircraft involved in the Pentagon crash, that there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon or that all planets in our solar system are inhabited by people like ourselves.

If you thought, SkepticOverlord, 'that someone with my deservedly well-regarded aviation background would have a consistent opinion on 911'. you thought wrong. My opinions change with the new information and new facts as they become available. Unlike others in this forum who, for reasons known only to themselves, wouldn't change their opinion, for any kind of evidence.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Mr. John Lear, with all dual respect, could you please give me some kind of a response to my question:
What do you think or know of what happened with the 10-11-06 New York City "plane crash" into a building?
I have very significant findings in my last 2 posts on my thread about this: www.abovetopsecret.com...
From the footage, the plane in question appears to not hit the building but actually travel away from the buildings just above the water on the left side of the screen:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
This is from the 9/11 comission report, Pages 221 through 229 talk about the training and the flight simulator time that they had, and did not have.



Hazmi and Hanjour left San Diego almost immediately and drove to Ari=zona.Settling in Mesa,Hanjour began refresher training at his old school,Ari=zona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough.The instructor advised him to dis=continue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa.An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing.


and

The three pilots in Florida continued with their training.Atta and Shehhi finished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA in November.In mid-December 2000,they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center.By the end of 2000,less than six months after their arrival,the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.


It also explains that they concentrated on not the take off/landing procedures, but in flight control and manipulation, including many passes through the Hudson corridor along Manhattan.

These men are the ones who controlled the jets that KILLED 2800 fellow Americans in a matter of 102 minutes from start to finish.

Again, however, I will ask.

1. Where were the holo projectors?
2. Where were the 'remote planes controlled from?
3. Where are the passengers and crew from the flights?



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR


While this is not the thread to discuss hijacker vs no hijacker, I can also unequivocally guarantee you that the maneuver on 9/11 was not only way harder to pull off than hitting an aircraft carrier in a manueverable piston-engined fighter, but it was also impossible to acheive without a solid and decent skill in airmanship.


Kamikazes weren't flying just maneuvrable piston engined fighters. They were also flying for example Ohkas, at speeds close to 0911 jets, with only crude manual controls (ie no hydraulic assist, no electronic aids...), while at top speed it was rather hard to overcome the airflow to steer the craft. Add to it much less training, smaller (in some cases much smaller) targets (even landing crafts were subjects to attack and hits), intense AA fire, targets being able to maneuver (actually for most kamikazes it was rather hard to adjust course in the final attack if a ship was able to put up a swift turn as a) pilots were VERY green and b) the faster their aircraft was flying the harder for them to steer)...
German late-war pilots with 40 flight hours were still able to shoot down a bomber (compared to say Pentagon very small, fast-moving, bristling with defensive fire and maneuvrable) target - granted they've managed to pass through escorts.
Guess they were RC?



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Originally posted by esdad71




.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center.By the end of 2000,less than six months after their arrival,the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.


Just give me the name of the airline or contractor that rented or leased the Boeing 757/767 to the arab hijackers for training. Its a simple question with a simple answer.

Reference to "Large Jet" means nothing. A Boeing 737 or Boeing 727 could be a "large jet" but wouldn't give you a clue how to disconnect the a/p or a/t or FMS on a Boeing 757/767.

With the name of the airline or contractor who rented or leased the simultor to the Arab Hijackers we can go and get the sim records and see what areas they practiced in and what mnauevers they practiced. For instance if the crashed into the World Trade Center 4 or 5 times a day probably the simulator maintenance guy would want to know "Hey, what the heck is going on up there?" He would probably get tired of rebooting the sim and go up and check things out.

And we know that they didn't teach themselves these things so there had to be an instructor. What company would let their instructor teach some arabs how to hit the World Trade Center.

Are you beginning to see how ridiculous the story that Arab hijackers flew these planes into the WTC is?


These men are the ones who controlled the jets that KILLED 2800 fellow Americans in a matter of 102 minutes from start to finish.


No they aren't. You would probably be shocked to know who really killed 2800 Americans.


Again, however, I will ask.

1. Where were the holo projectors?


Previously asked and answered


2. Where were the 'remote planes controlled from?


Previously asked and answered


3. Where are the passengers and crew from the flights?


Previously asked and answered.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

And we know that they didn't teach themselves these things so there had to be an instructor. What company would let their instructor teach some arabs how to hit the World Trade Center.



Erm, the article doesn't mention they trained hitting WTC, just that they trained flight maneuvers. You know, when you want to keep your target secret, you won't make such giveaways uless you can ensure that noone would notice this. Which wasn't the case, as you yourself noticed (but failed to make the conclusion needed).
Even the military top notch pilots have seldom opportunity to train exactly for their next mission's target location.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
Kamikazes weren't flying just maneuvrable piston engined fighters....


I have seen several kamikazi videos myself and a proportion of them do miss and fail. And we really do not know the statistics on that. I never saw them bother to dodge AA fire, either. Compare the complexities of flying a passenger liner and a piston warbird, examine the massive differences in manueverability, recall that they flew in groups to a specific area without having to "find" a block of a city without assistance, at the right angle, and lastly compare the width of the plane compared to it's target in both cases.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by esdad71




.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center.By the end of 2000,less than six months after their arrival,the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.


Just give me the name of the airline or contractor that rented or leased the Boeing 757/767 to the arab hijackers for training. Its a simple question with a simple answer.

Reference to "Large Jet" means nothing. A Boeing 737 or Boeing 727 could be a "large jet" but wouldn't give you a clue how to disconnect the a/p or a/t or FMS on a Boeing 757/767.

With the name of the airline or contractor who rented or leased the simultor to the Arab Hijackers we can go and get the sim records and see what areas they practiced in and what mnauevers they practiced. For instance if the crashed into the World Trade Center 4 or 5 times a day probably the simulator maintenance guy would want to know "Hey, what the heck is going on up there?" He would probably get tired of rebooting the sim and go up and check things out.

And we know that they didn't teach themselves these things so there had to be an instructor. What company would let their instructor teach some arabs how to hit the World Trade Center.

Are you beginning to see how ridiculous the story that Arab hijackers flew these planes into the WTC is?


These men are the ones who controlled the jets that KILLED 2800 fellow Americans in a matter of 102 minutes from start to finish.


No they aren't. You would probably be shocked to know who really killed 2800 Americans.


Again, however, I will ask.

1. Where were the holo projectors?


Previously asked and answered


2. Where were the 'remote planes controlled from?


Previously asked and answered


3. Where are the passengers and crew from the flights?


Previously asked and answered.





Simple question, simple answer, better check your TONE their buddy. I have been patiently awaiting the asnwers to the questions you just blew off with your 'already answered bs' so lets keep this civil. Are you going to provide the answers, or pull the old 'find it yourself' line.

As far as the simulators, I gave the link to the 9/11 commission report that explains it. Seems you don't like getting called out on certain issues and get a little defensive John. These men had trouble learning because of language barriers. Your mention of the reboot also sheds light on the fact they did alot of that with FS 2000 as well as time in a real simulator. No one said they were crashing the planes into the towers, jsust more concerned about 'in flight' control, not take off and landing.


Also, please shock me with your answer as to who killed those 2800 that day, I need a good story to read. You answer seems to allude to the fact you are sure who killed them.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Originally posted by tuccy




Erm, the article doesn't mention they trained hitting WTC, just that they trained flight maneuvers. You know, when you want to keep your target secret, you won't make such giveaways uless you can ensure that noone would notice this.



You fail to understand what a pilot of limited ability had to know to accomplish the mission. Assuming he can find out where he is at a point 2 or 3 hundred miles northwest of New York at 35,000 feet and assuming he can get headed in the right direction with limited ability (remember he can't SEE New York), and assuming he could figure out when to descend and assuming he could get with 25 miles of New York, he would then have to set up an approach that would take him downwind of the target far enough to give him enough room to make the turn to final approach. As the plane was seen in level flight and since he would have to have made the turn at least by the Colts Neck VOR he now has to line up with WTC without being able to see it. Now keeping it level at about 800 feet at allegedly 500 mph he has to keep lined up with the WTC perfectly still with just barely being able to see the top of it. In the last 60 seconds he is going to cover 8 miles during which he can't vary even one degree to hit the target. To do this he keeps landmarks he has previously flown over to guide him.

Now, is this something that be practiced over the cornfields in Kansas? Is this something that can be practiced over the Everglades? Is this something that can be practiced in the desert near Phoenix? If you answered yes to any of these questions you need more practice.

You need to understand that to simulate a profile such as these alleged arabs allegedly flew you have to have a target. In a simulator the windshield is black until you electronically put it somewhere. Simulators have major cities you can program to. But if you are going to practice hitting a tall building there has to be a TALL BUILDING!!! You can't just get in the box and say lets go practice hitting a tall building. There has to be one. You can't pretend. You can't build one in the sim. You can only program it to go to a place it already knows.

Arab Hijacker #1: "But we don't want to give away the plan that its the World Trade Center. Arab Hijacker #2: So lets go practice on the Sears Tower. Arab Hijacker #3:Yeah! Thats it! We'll practice on the Sears Tower! Arab Hijacker #4: I'm sure no one will notice! Arab Hijacker #5: Hamdililah! Praise be to Allah!



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
I have seen several kamikazi videos myself and a proportion of them do miss and fail.

Given the stated impossibility to hit a large building with a modern plane, 100% of them should fail, no?



And we really do not know the statistics on that. I never saw them bother to dodge AA fire, either.

But they did. It even sometimes happened the barrage was so strong the Kamikaze gave it up and tried to find another target. And you won't see them dodging in the videos mostly because there they are usually caught on tape just moments before the impact.



Compare the complexities of flying a passenger liner and a piston warbird,

Yup. In piston engined warbird of WWII you for example didn't have all that exact navigation equipment as today and no GPS to tell you where to steer to get to target location. Also no hydraulic assistance in steering so it became physically very demanding to steer the craft at higher speeds.
By the way, Ohkas weren't piston engined, they were rocket powered, attack speed was comparable to 767's at WTC and this all with only the basic steering and aiming aids.



examine the massive differences in manueverability,

Yup. For 767 the impact speed at WTC is normal construction speed where it does maneuver as expected (and as can be simulated on the simulator). WWII warbirds were suffering severe compressibility problems connected with drastical reduction of maneuvrability or even blockages at rather slower speeds, esp. the older ones often used for Kamikaze.



recall that they flew in groups to a specific area without having to "find" a block of a city without assistance,

Rather easier to locate two highest buildings in the city, moreover at a rather easy-to-find spot (thanks to characteristic island and Hudson mouth shape) than to have to locate smaller, lower and moving ships while being aggressively attacked by experienced pilots and long-range heavy AA fire.



at the right angle, and lastly compare the width of the plane compared to it's target in both cases.


Why does the width of the plane bother? You're aiming at the centre of the target regardless whether you're flying Piper Cub or 767. But with Piper if you miss the target completely by 10 meters from the center line of the craft, you miss it. With 767 you still hit it atleast with the wing.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
@John Lear:
As for locating New York, with wonders of modern age it's rather easy. For example with a simple, commercial GPS.
For landmark recognition you don't need the professional flight sim. Say Microsoft Flight Sim would be enough to plan your flight path with easily recognizeable landmarks (which are even in 98 edition rather visible in large American cities). This would tell you as well which maneuvers would be needed to do so (say 270 degree turn, descend to 1000 feet, keep in straight line and level flight for 2 minutes, make another turn..." and thus what maneuvers do you need to practise on the profi sim say above the green fields of Kansas or wherever.
So no, they won't need to crash highrises in the profi simulator. Kamikazes also didn't have to crash at a Japanese ship before being sent into action, all they did (in a very limited time, much more limited than the hijackers had) was training of takeoff and of one or two specific maneuvers they'd do upon reaching the target.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Originally posted by tuccy




As for locating New York, with wonders of modern age it's rather easy. For example with a simple, commercial GPS. For landmark recognition you don't need the professional flight sim. Say Microsoft Flight Sim would be enough to plan your flight path with easily recognizeable landmarks (which are even in 98 edition rather visible in large American cities). This would tell you as well which maneuvers would be needed to do so (say 270 degree turn, descend to 1000 feet, keep in straight line and level flight for 2 minutes, make another turn..." and thus what maneuvers do you need to practise on the profi sim say above the green fields of Kansas or wherever.


And you think Arab hijackers with limited experience could work all that AND fly the Boeing 767? Tuccy, listen to me carefully. Take 2 aspirin and post again tomorrow morning. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
...examine the massive differences in manueverability...



Originally posted by tuccy
Yup. For 767 the impact speed at WTC is normal construction speed where it does maneuver as expected (and as can be simulated on the simulator). WWII warbirds were suffering severe compressibility problems connected with drastical reduction of maneuvrability or even blockages at rather slower speeds, esp. the older ones often used for Kamikaze.



Ok. Let's drop the warbird comparative for a moment, you're obviously not getting it. I shall reference John Lear and all the other experienced pilots who've said something very similar to the following -


Originally posted by johnlear
In the last 60 seconds he is going to cover 8 miles during which he can't vary even one degree to hit the target.


I think that says it all. How can you attribute such precision to arab hijackers?


There's three possibilities.

1. Professional airmen flew the 767's.
2. Remote or onboard computers flew the 767's.
3. There were no 767's.

[edit on 25/10/06 by SteveR]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   
So where is the answer to my questions on the holo's and the passengers. IT should take you two seconds if you have already answered it.

Also, Did you read where the terrorists took single engine rides to plot the course by taking the Hudson channel route, a few times, even with instructors. For a scholar you ceratinly do not check your facts before spouting out your rhetoric.

Also, when was the last time you were in a 'large' jet piloting or navigating, a 767 sim or real plane? For someone who believes in such black technology I find it hard to beleive that you do not understand that with the 'years' of training these guys had at numerous locations you feel they could not have accomplished what they did. Are you speaking of personal experience, or like the rest of us from research or second hand conversations with pilots.

Maybe you should stop smoking moon rocks and telling others how incorrect they are.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, Did you read where the terrorists took single engine rides to plot the course by taking the Hudson channel route, a few times, even with instructors. For a scholar you ceratinly do not check your facts before spouting out your rhetoric.


I sure would make a pretty bad scholar if I beleived everything I read. You can call me an "alternative scholar" if it makes you happy.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I just want to float the possibility here with you all, seeing this is a conspiracy site and we are here to discuss possibilities - 9/11 was a dress rehearsal for Project Blue Beam. People have said "well, this is ridiculous, wouldn't it be more economical just to use real planes?" - NOT if the payoff would be huge knowing they can pull it off, giving them the green light for the main event yet to come.

People have said "how could you mount a holographic projector?" - well quite easily, you could make it any size you like, including provisions for sound amplifiers / loudspeakers - AND THEN CLOAK IT. There has already been confirmations in the media recently regarding cloaking technology - it is real and it is here - we can only imagine 'they' have access to things that will blow our mind; the media only feed us small scraps of the true reality.

People have said "ok but what happened to the people on the planes?" - they were taken away and murdered. That's the bottom line. They even speak of this in Loose Change. In operational terms, the passengers can be coldly written off as collateral damage, pure and simple.

Now, any of you quick to scoff at what I have said above, I implore you to take a look at this 5 minute video clip here - it will blow you away - provides undeniable evidence that holographics CAN pass for the real thing with unnerving ease. It's a demonstration of technologies worked on by Total Immersion's D'Fusion technology. Watch the helicopter at the end. Moving around the room.. realistic sound included. It is here, folks.

Those who haven't heard of Project Blue Beam until now, Google it right now and catch up on it, it's what Wernher von Braun warned about in his later years, as related by Dr. Carol Rosin of the Disclosure Project - a series of events with the end goal of weaponising space, beginning with Cold War, then an age of terrorism, then asteroids, culminating in a massive faked alien invasion (Project Blue Beam). Amazing stuff.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by RiotComing]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join