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.
keeping a small aircraft in the air is vastly different from nose diving twin engine airliners with pinpoint accuracy into ground targets. This begs several questions.
originally posted by: samkent
One would have to define 'poorly trained'.
How much training does a vest bomber get?
How much training does a teenager get to run Microsoft Filght sim?
According to law enforcement officials and press reports, the 19 suspected terrorists received flight training from at least 10 U.S. flight schools.
Anyone who has taken these 'demo' filght training from their local air schools knows how little skill it takes to keep a plane in the air on a clear day. Especially if someone else does the takeoff.
originally posted by: Anonymous ATS
reply to post by seanm
Has it ever occured to you, that ANYONE with direct first-hand knowledge of any conspiricy within the U.S. to murder thousands of people on U.S. soil has a VERY good reason not to talk about it? Like conspiracy to commit murder, treason, ETC...
Why did some of their former pilot school instructors claim they were poor pilots and (along with commercial airline pilots) were not capable of pulling off the attacks? Were they mistaken in their statements?
Who gave the "terrorist" the coordinates to the Twin Towers??? Did you see the flight path? Where did they get their directions from???
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: sg1642
Why did some of their former pilot school instructors claim they were poor pilots and (along with commercial airline pilots) were not capable of pulling off the attacks? Were they mistaken in their statements?
They were poor pilots.
Did you read the reports from the instructors?
The hijackers were not interested in take off or landing instruction/practice. Only level flight and flight computer management.
Buy anyones measure that qualifies as 'poor pilot'.
I took one of those 'introductory' flights many years ago.
I had never flown any plane before. Yet the instructor verbaly told me what to do from beginning to just before touch down.
He never once touched any controls until just before the wheels touched down. I did it all.
Flying is not as hard as many think.
yet their instructors said they could barely manage to (or couldn't at all) control a small single engine aircraft in the manner you have. How did they manage to go from that to navigating and flying a large airliner travelling at hundreds of miles per hour? Then slam them into targets with extreme precision? Perhaps they had been guests of Pinal after all. Or got extremely lucky. Or maybe they never even flew them. Who knows.
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: sg1642
Why did some of their former pilot school instructors claim they were poor pilots and (along with commercial airline pilots) were not capable of pulling off the attacks? Were they mistaken in their statements?
They were poor pilots.
Did you read the reports from the instructors?
The hijackers were not interested in take off or landing instruction/practice. Only level flight and flight computer management.
Buy anyones measure that qualifies as 'poor pilot'.
I took one of those 'introductory' flights many years ago.
I had never flown any plane before. Yet the instructor verbaly told me what to do from beginning to just before touch down.
He never once touched any controls until just before the wheels touched down. I did it all.
Flying is not as hard as many think.
I've never seen that quoted anywhere could you show me? (I'm not trying to call you a liar or make out I don't believe you buddy don't take that the wrong way.)
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: sg1642. No, their instructors said that as long as they did not have to worry about taking off or landing, they were more than capable of flying into the buildings. For crying out loud, some of them had commercial pilots licenses.
How did they manage to go from that to navigating and flying a large airliner travelling at hundreds of miles per hour? Then slam them into targets with extreme precision? Perhaps they had been guests of Pinal after all. Or got extremely lucky.
what you are missing out is the 3000ft/m accent and the 10000ft/m descent followed by a sharp banking manoeuvre to hit his target at around 500mph. The autopilot didn't pull off those moves. Did this relatively amateur pilot do what many professional pilots say he couldn't? Or are they wrong? I don't mean to be insulting or anything like that buddy but your own post contradicts itself.
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: [post=18813509]sg1642[/po
How did they manage to go from that to navigating and flying a large airliner travelling at hundreds of miles per hour? Then slam them into targets with extreme precision? Perhaps they had been guests of Pinal after all. Or got extremely lucky.
It's one little knob on the computer.
Just turn it to the heading you want and the auto pilot turns and puts you on course.
Once you get within 100 miles of NYC you can pick it out on the horizon. Especially on a clear day.
If you are off course a bit turn the knob a bit.
Once you get within 10-15 grab the stick and aim.
If you look at the video the second plane almost missed the building. Hitting way off center and at an angle not perpendicular. Plus he had a steep bank, indicating he was turning hard to correct his path.
But at long range you can't tell if the structure is at right angle to your heading. Better to hit as best you can instead of attempting a go around and striking some lesser building.
So much for precision.
what I don't understand is why he wouldn't just slam the aircraft down through the pentagon roof? The official line is certainly possible and could very well be correct. But if you intended to hit a target you wouldn't preform manoeuvres that would present you with a smaller target area. Or keep you in the air longer than necessary when there could be F16s en route to intercept you.
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: sg1642
A link to a page that discusses the hijackers and their piloting abilities...
www.911myths.com...
""Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said" Marcel Bernard...the man who declined to rent a Cessna to Hani Hanjour....
"As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the #ty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.
It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.
"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."
"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."
"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."
That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon"
"In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did."
www.911myths.com...
coming in at low level to strike on side of the facade would present much more chance of missing and causing less or no damage. He had a clear run and decided to alter his course. It's that line of thinking I don't understand. Aiming for the roofs of the pentagon rings would have guaranteed more damage and presented the entire surface area of the building as a target. Coming in low with his poor flying skills presented him with a much smaller surface area to strike and the risk of grounding the aircraft.
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: sg1642 You did catch that the man who refused to rent him that airplane is the same man that said Hanjour was fully capable of flying the 757 into the Pentagon?
And why he aimed for the side instead of the roof...easy, less chance of missing and greater potential for damage.
originally posted by: seanm
This is one of the dirty little secrets 9/11 Truthers are unable to address. Not only would it require a substantial number of people to be involved in all of the pre-event activities required for a plan to be pulled off, e.g., planting explosives in the WTC towers, getting NORAD to "stand-down", planning what to do with aircraft and their passengers that "didn't" hit the Pentagon, there would be a far greater number of people having no prior knowledge of the plan who would have known that the explanations of what happened AFTER the events didn't jive with what they knew.
Add to that the many hundreds of non-government investigators and forensic scientists who would have had to either lie or be threatened to put out what would have to be false reports from NIST, FEMA, and ASCE.
Necessarily, thousands of people would know of either the plan in advance and/ or that the the explanations post-event didn't jive with what they personally knew.
The peculiar notion by 9/11 conspiracy buffs that such an event could be planned, executed successfully, and covered-up is far beyond absurd and irrational.
That's why the 9/11 Truth Movement is known by its proper name: the The 9/11 Denial Movement.