Please stop with the crazy claims!

Hello ultima1. Here we go again.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So you could make the 360 degree turn that Flight 77 did without any correction input during the turn (according the flight data recorder) and come out exactly lined up on a building the size of the Pentagon?

Dunno. Honestly. Probably not. But someone did. A pilot controlling the aircraft from the cockpit would be more likely to execute such a manoevre successfully, or at least as likely, than an 'autopilot' - presumably (well theoretically, in your fantasy scenario) controlled by a team of people in some remote location. Or are you implying that Hanjour utilized the autopilot to hit the Pentagon? I don't believe the flight recorder reports this to have occurred, but I may be wrong.

Either the pilot had thousands of hours or the autopilt was flying the plane. Which leads to the question how did the hijackers know how to program the autopilot exactly?

'Thousands of hours' of logged flight time needed in order to turn an aircraft in flight is your proclamation, with, as usual, no supporting evidence to back it up. Flying the 757 into The Pentagon under cockpit control is the most plausible scenario, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. It is definitely possible, so why do you insist on arguing about it so much?


I think you may be overestimating what the autopilot fitted to a commercial airliner in 2001 could do: maintain straight & level is about it. Technology now exists to automate more complex manoevers including landing, but we see no proof that any such was fitted to these aircraft way back then, or was used. Saying you 'believe' or 'don't believe' is really not good enough. Not for me, anyways.

Deny Ignorance. Go with the simple and obvious, if it fits the observed facts.

Originally posted by bovarcher
'Thousands of hours' of logged flight time needed in order to turn an aircraft in flight is your proclamation, with, as usual, no supporting evidence to back it up. about it so much?

But it was not just a turn. It was an exact turn with no contol corrections during the whole turn. Then to come out of the turn dirctly lined up with a building.

Also you might want to do some reseasrch on the 757 autopilot. They can be preprogrammed.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


I don't agree with everything you say but here I have to agree. This type of turn and having it line up with the Pentagon without correction is really not believable.

That is something that has never been fully explained.

[edit on 17-11-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
I don't agree with everything you say but here I have to agree. This type of turn and having it line up with the Pentagon without correction is really not believable.

Well thanks talisman, i think this is the first time anyone admitted they can agree with some things.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by bovarcher
'Thousands of hours' of logged flight time needed in order to turn an aircraft in flight is your proclamation, with, as usual, no supporting evidence to back it up. about it so much?

But it was not just a turn. It was an exact turn with no contol corrections during the whole turn. Then to come out of the turn dirctly lined up with a building.

yes but what do you mean by an exact turn, can you have a non-exact turn? and none of the planes where exactly lined up with the buildings, watch the videos they all turn a little bit before they hit the buildings

Originally posted by open mind
yes but what do you mean by an exact turn, can you have a non-exact turn?

I mean by an exact turn that according the Flight Data Recorder not a single correction was made during the wide turn, and to come out of the turn almost exactly lined up to the building.

Yes, it is very difficutl to be lined up on a building doing several hundred miles an hour, but somehow the hijackers did it pretty easily.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by open mind
yes but what do you mean by an exact turn, can you have a non-exact turn?

I mean by an exact turn that according the Flight Data Recorder not a single correction was made during the wide turn, and to come out of the turn almost exactly lined up to the building.

Yes, it is very difficutl to be lined up on a building doing several hundred miles an hour, but somehow the hijackers did it pretty easily.

Maybe it was just luck on their part? I made a hole in 1 in golf once and I suck so do you think I was skillful or lucky?

Originally posted by jfj123
Maybe it was just luck on their part? I made a hole in 1 in golf once and I suck so do you think I was skillful or lucky?

Well i do believe it was more the luck to get 3 planes on target doing some pretty experienced flying.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Maybe it was just luck on their part? I made a hole in 1 in golf once and I suck so do you think I was skillful or lucky?

Well i do believe it was more the luck to get 3 planes on target doing some pretty experienced flying.

Well they did have quite a few hours of in class experience and add a bit of luck. Have you tried flying an accurate computer flight simulator to see if you could duplicate it without much effort?

Originally posted by jfj123
Well they did have quite a few hours of in class experience and add a bit of luck.

Class room trianing is a lot different then actually flying.

How come a lot of experienced pilots have stated that it could not be done by a novice pilot?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


You really cant compare those pilots with novice flyers, when the only thing they where interested in was how to fly those planes straight in to buildings. They didnt train to fly a plane randomly around in the sky, and suddenly come up with the idea of flying in to 4 separate builings ??



[edit on 18-11-2007 by tep200377]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Well they did have quite a few hours of in class experience and add a bit of luck.

Class room trianing is a lot different then actually flying.

How come a lot of experienced pilots have stated that it could not be done by a novice pilot?

And some said it could have. Just depends on what/who you want to believe or not. Why not find out for yourself though and try an accurate computer simulator and see how it goes?

Originally posted by jfj123
And some said it could have. Just depends on what/who you want to believe or not. Why not find out for yourself though and try an accurate computer simulator and see how it goes?

Because i tend to go with good facts and evidnece. Besides i was a Crew Chief in the Air Force and have a little knowledge of aircraft.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
And some said it could have. Just depends on what/who you want to believe or not. Why not find out for yourself though and try an accurate computer simulator and see how it goes?

Because i tend to go with good facts and evidnece. Besides i was a Crew Chief in the Air Force and have a little knowledge of aircraft.

So other people with the same or more experience then you are wrong? What makes you say that? Have you ever flown a 767 or something close? I think the problem we have here is simply opinion. Some experienced pilots say it's plausible, some say it isn't. So barring absolute proof of how it happened, everything is mere opinion.

Originally posted by jfj123
So other people with the same or more experience then you are wrong? What makes you say that? So barring absolute proof of how it happened, everything is mere opinion.

I did not say others are wrong, i am simply going with the evidence i have found doing research.

Thats why i have been trying to get the prrof. I have filed FOIA request and e-mailed people.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
So other people with the same or more experience then you are wrong? What makes you say that? So barring absolute proof of how it happened, everything is mere opinion.

I did not say others are wrong, i am simply going with the evidence i have found doing research.

Thats why i have been trying to get the prrof. I have filed FOIA request and e-mailed people.

actually what you are saying is they are indeed wrong as you are saying that the terrorists didn't have the experience to fly those planes into the the towers. Other, experienced pilots are saying the terrorists could. You are indeed disagreeing. Thats ok if you don't agree but I would suggest not saying something you don't mean because it could get very confusing when responding.

Originally posted by jfj123
actually what you are saying is they are indeed wrong as you are saying that the terrorists didn't have the experience to fly those planes into the the towers.

I am jsut going by the evdience i have so far, so far it states that the hijackers were not good enough to do some of the things they did.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
actually what you are saying is they are indeed wrong as you are saying that the terrorists didn't have the experience to fly those planes into the the towers.

I am jsut going by the evdience i have so far, so far it states that the hijackers were not good enough to do some of the things they did.

What are you using as evidence that states that the hijackers were not good enough to do some of the things they did?

Here's an interesting article about flight simulators as they relate to the 9/11 hijackers

Below are just a few excerpts

The newest flight simulation video games are so realistic that a terrorist can learn how to fly a jumbo jet without ever leaving his laptop.

By Joshua Tompkins
July 23, 2003

"Microsoft Flight Simulator," a bestselling video game. Though the airplane isn't real, the procedures I've described certainly are, and the make- believe flight deck on my computer screen is a perfect virtual- reality replica of an actual A320 cockpit. Knobs, buttons, switches, throttles, electronic displays -- everything remotely important is there, situated correctly and functioning accurately. If you can work the autopilot or the flight computer in this simulation, some airline pilots say, you can work their real-life counterparts.

Such software may have been exploited by the Sept. 11 pilots to help rehearse their missions, although the time they spent in flight schools received more media attention. Since Sept. 11, home computer aircraft simulations have grown in sophistication - - and they will continue to do so, mimicking real planes with mounting precision until the only limitation is the size of your monitor.

Here's the link to the full article
www.temple.edu...

Originally posted by jfj123
What are you using as evidence that states that the hijackers were not good enough to do some of the things they did?

It was a combination of several things.

Looking at the amount of hours the hijackers had, the statements from their instructors.

Also looking at the radar tracking and the maneuvers made and speeds they were made at.

Along with the amount of experienced pilots have have stated it could not be done with the amount of hours the hijackers had.