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.

 

Flight School Head Admits Neither He Nor 9/11 Hijackers Could Fly 9/11 Planes

page: 10
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post COOL HAND. No center tank fuel pump on any Boeing 747 ever ignited fumes and caused an explosion in any center tank of any Boeing 747. It was a ridiculous explanation. Couldn't have happened. Didn't happen. Wouldn't happen. No possible way could it happen.


How many other center fuel tank pumps or motors had problems of this sort?



When the government intially proposed the planned coverup Boeing first said no. Then the government said, how about just limiting the fuel pump story to just 100 series 747's and we'll let you merge with McDonnell Douglas? Boeing then agreed.


So, now you expect us to believe that Boeing is more powerful than the government? The government could have said that the tooth fairy was responsible for the crash and Boeing could not have done a thing about it.



That fuel tank fairy tale was a government sponsered ruse to cover up the accidental shooting down of TWA Flight 800 by the U.S. Navy. I believe that it was the 5th civilian airliner accidentally shot down by the Navy. The first one being the Flying Tigers Constellation full of marines headed for Viet Nam in 1963 over Guam. A Navy fighter was using the Connie for target practice and accidentally let loose some live rounds. Everybody on board was killed. And the U.S. Navy went into maximum cover-up mode as they did after TWA Flight 800.

Alright john, here is your chance to shine. You could, potentially, be the first person to ever show irrefutable proof the US Navy did it on this (or any other) website. I have asked for this kind of info before, and no one has coughed anything up.



Heck, they let ME fly for over 40 years. What does that say for their 'weeding out'.


Seems fine to me, as I have yet to see you demonstrate any kind of suicidal tendencies.




posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
About center fuel tank pumps...somewhere in Asia an unoccupied B737 caught fire. It was later determined that the center tank pumps were on in an empty tank (for edification, the B737 has three tanks [well some have four, but it's an adjunct to the center tank] one in each wing, and, as noted, one in the belly of the fuselage, right where the wing is attached).

Anyway, the airplane was lost. It didn't qualify as an 'accident' since the airplane was not being operated at the time. But, I guess it did get some attention....

Back to the point of this thread, though. Could a relatively inexperienced General Aviation-trained pilot fly a B757 or B767? That was the original question. My opinion? Yes. Others have other opinions. As I said before, only a test in a simulator, fairly moderated and observed, will answer this question.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Originally posted by COOL HAND





Alright john, here is your chance to shine. You could, potentially, be the first person to ever show irrefutable proof the US Navy did it on this (or any other) website. I have asked for this kind of info before, and no one has coughed anything up.



Thanks for the post COOL HAND, and SHINE I will. First let me prove the Fleet 21 computerized battleship and nuclear powered 70 foot Fast Attack Sub are operational and then I have to prove a breathable atmopshere on the moon and then I'll get right straight to proving the the U.S. Navy shot down TWA Flight 800.

You betchum Red Ryder.

Uh, don't hold your breath COOL HAND, this may take some time. Know what I mean?

Thanks for the posts and input, it is truly appreciated.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Uh, don't hold your breath COOL HAND, this may take some time. Know what I mean?


Let me guess... It means that you aren't going to back your arbitrary and unsubstantiated claims... Because you are "above" AboveTopSecret... What else is new?


[edit on 28-11-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlearThanks for the post COOL HAND, and SHINE I will. First let me prove the Fleet 21 computerized battleship and nuclear powered 70 foot Fast Attack Sub are operational and then I have to prove a breathable atmopshere on the moon and then I'll get right straight to proving the the U.S. Navy shot down TWA Flight 800.

Uh, don't hold your breath COOL HAND, this may take some time. Know what I mean?


Well, why don't you just post the info that you already have? Perhaps there are some here who have the "missing links" that you are looking for.

Perhaps you are afraid the evidence you may have is too flimsy and wouldn't stand up to scrutiny?



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Jeez, buddhasystem. I enjoy reading your posts, mostly. However, you can be a little shrill at times. In my opinion....

I'm just saying, when you disagree with someone (you may disagree with me) it would elevate the discussion if there was less sarcasm. Just an observation, not a criticism.

sidebar: are you ever offended when others respond to you and refer to you as 'BS'? Just wondering...



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
why the evil Boeing risked its reputation, spent millions, all to protect the (now dead) nutty jealous pilot??

A mechanical defect can be fixed (faulty yaw controls). Just issue a recall and update maintenance procedures. The paying customer will feel safer, knowing that a (minor) fault has been rectified.

Human emotions can't be fixed. Pilot suicide would concern me if I knew that it happened more than was being reported. Like machines, humans can break down - however, you can't recall that particular human and fix the problem, right? Furthermore, you don't know when the next one will break down.

If Boeing had a choice of two evils, then I could see how they might choose to blame the machine to maximise their profits, when blaming the pilots could have resulted in far greater losses.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Greetings TJ,


Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm just saying, when you disagree with someone (you may disagree with me) it would elevate the discussion if there was less sarcasm.


Well if in a debate the other party just plain refuses to present evidence in support of the original (and pretty outrageous) claim, what else do you do? I know I can always stay silent...


sidebar: are you ever offended when others respond to you and refer to you as 'BS'? Just wondering...


I'm actually not. It relflects more on the people who choose such mode of address, and it's their business.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You seem to imply that the pilot was employed by Boeing? What was that connection?

You know, the situation is somewhat akin to a teenager speeding in a Camaro and crashing into a lamp post, killing all aboard. Chevrolet then steps in and claims that it was a faulty link in the steering system just to cover it up, at huge expense. Does it make any sense to you?



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Thanks, buddhasystem.

Guess I don't have to tilt at windmills on your behalf, you have it well in hand!! (I do enjoy reading your repostes...).

Cheers!

TJ/ww



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You seem to imply that the pilot was employed by Boeing? What was that connection?

You know, the situation is somewhat akin to a teenager speeding in a Camaro and crashing into a lamp post, killing all aboard. Chevrolet then steps in and claims that it was a faulty link in the steering system just to cover it up, at huge expense. Does it make any sense to you?


I think tezzajw was attmpting to point out that the Airlines are in a business of mass transportation. An individual in a car is not the same, sorry.

What is disturbing to contemplate is, a 'conspiracy' of sorts to cover up the alleged 'suicide' for strictly business purposes. THIS, if true, would break my heart.

IF true, and when my heart heals...then I am resolved to expose such chicanery....



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Back to the top (our original programming...)

budski, who was this alleged 'Head of Flight School' referred to at the beginning of this thread? How credible is he/she?

Just wondering...



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You seem to imply that the pilot was employed by Boeing? What was that connection?

Not at all. However, the pilots were flying Boeing planes. Boeing, along with the airline industry would suffer if it was true that pilot suicide was more common than officially reported.

When you consider that Boeing are one of the biggest players in the airline industry, I think that they would have a vested interest in any crash of their planes, regardless of which airline the plane was registered to.



You know, the situation is somewhat akin to a teenager speeding in a Camaro and crashing into a lamp post, killing all aboard. Chevrolet then steps in and claims that it was a faulty link in the steering system just to cover it up, at huge expense. Does it make any sense to you?

It's nothing at all like that. A Boeing plane carries hundreds of paying passengers who trust the pilot. Pilots are supposed to be weeded out to the point where only the best people fly them.

A speeding teenager in a car is not responsible for paying passengers and only has to pass a basic license test to use the roads. Any certifiable idiot can gain a driver's license.

Sorry, invalid comparison.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


He's the CEO of Huffman Aviation (Rudi Dekkers) in Venice, Florida where 2 of the pilots took lessons.

As a supposed independant witness he seems credible, and conducts himself well.
He sounds either German or Dutch - not sure if that has any relevance.

OK, found a wiki article - he's dutch.
en.wikipedia.org...

Also looks like there's been a few smear campaigns and some bad publicity, so I'm a bit surprised he gave the interview.

Something else here

After the attacks, media pointed out that one of the school's hangars was also the location of Britannia Aviation, a possible CIA front that listed no employees or licensing, and had assets totalling only $750 yet had been listed as awarded multi-million dollar contracts in order to operate. Its only known employee was named Paul Marten.[4]

Owner Rudi Dekkers gave conflicting reports after the attacks, once claiming that he knew both students were on terrorist watchlists, and that they were alleged to be planning to use planes as weapons.[5]

source

If the reports of conflicting accounts are true (and he wasn't just dazzled by the media spotlight) then his credibility takes a knock.
That said, the Dutch can have ideas about protecting themselves and their privacy that others may find strange.

It's also a bit strange that an alleged CIA front shared the same hangar.

[edit on 28/11/2007 by budski]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Boeing, along with the airline industry would suffer if it was true that pilot suicide was more common than officially reported.

When you consider that Boeing are one of the biggest players in the airline industry, I think that they would have a vested interest in any crash of their planes, regardless of which airline the plane was registered to.


Look, if you are saying that it is profitable for Boeing to advertise the fact that they developed a faulty product (all in the face of cuththroat competition!), whereas the accident could have been a human error, I must confess that I don't follow such logic.


It's nothing at all like that. A Boeing plane carries hundreds of paying passengers who trust the pilot. Pilots are supposed to be weeded out to the point where only the best people fly them.


Jeez, again, these pilots were not employed by Boeing, how hard is that? Boeing did not "weed out" any of the pilots in any of the flights.

According to you, Boeing should have stepped in after the 9/11 and announce that it was faulty avionics that guided the planes into the WTC towers and there were no hijackers of any sort. All because of the Boeings "vested interest" in such impossible coverups.



[edit on 28-11-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Look, if you are saying that it is profitable for Boeing to advertise the fact that they developed a faulty product (all in the face of cuththroat competition!), whereas the accident could have been a human error, I must confess that I don't follow such logic.

I never meant to state it would be profitable, per se. I stated that Boeing would have had a choice to decide which of either loss scenarios would have been more acceptable to them, in other words minimising their losses. Maximising their profits should have read "minimising their losses", a good call by you, as the two notions are not the same. If they're going to lose money, would they choose to state that it was a faulty component that could be fixed easily in the short-term; or pilot suicide, which is much more frightening for their long-term profits if there is a loss of confidence in the industry?

You don't follow the logic, as judging by your posts in the past month or so, you're only prepared to believe things at face value, without wondering about other possible motives. Afterall, this is a conspiracy website and you seem to rely mainly on what your physics PhD taught you (which I am not disrespecting, I've been through University). I work in a sector where I see lies told on a daily basis. They're not big lies, nor will they affect the sun rising tomorrow, but they are bogus 'offical' stories, none-the-less.

You choose to believe the official story. However, that doesn't mean it was true. Note, that I am not stating I know what happened, however, I can see merit in the pilot suicide cover-story, where you can't.



According to you, Boeing should have stepped in after the 9/11 and announce that it was faulty avionics that guided the planes into the WTC towers and there were no hijackers of any sort. All because of the Boeings "vested interest" in such impossible coverups.

Not at all. Don't make things up about what I might say, your extrapolations are way off - you better check your source data, as that's a nonsense claim.

I don't believe that the alleged hijackers could have acted alone to fly the alleged planes into the towers. I don't know how it all really happened and I will probably never know, as I don't believe that any government sponsored 'official' investigation will ever be truthful.

End it here - we disagree, so be it. You can reply if you want and you probably will, but I'm done with it.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Sorry, doublepost. Damn Edit feature.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajwYou don't follow the logic, as judging by your posts in the past month or so


Tezzajw, where exactly did I not follow the logic? I'm curious, really. For example, I posted a lot of stuff debunking the presence of breathable lunar atmosphere. My position is based on strict logic -- indeed, if such atmosphere was present, that would result in a host of phenomena that could be observed and verified. I'm not trying to change topic here, but look, you are accusing me of lacking logic and that is simply untrue.


Afterall, this is a conspiracy website and you seem to rely mainly on what your physics PhD taught you


Heck, a conspiracy moniker on a website does not equal a license to post unsubstantiated claims that contradict observable facts. It's doesn't take a PhD in any science to see that. My degree does not influence my conviction that your theory about Boeing minimizing their loss by falsely assuming responsibility for the crash, due to a non-existent defect in their hardware, is way off mark.


I work in a sector where I see lies told on a daily basis.


This must be a terrible experience!



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
So, let me get this right....

Two identical 737s, crashed by yawing and flipping upside down, are suicides, even though when thermal shock was applied to the Rudder PCU controls are locked and reversed which would cause the plane to yaw heavily? And then over a year later there was a 'attempted suicide', involving ANOTHER 737 yawing heavily? Why not push the nose DOWN? Turn off centre fuel tanks so you run dry early?


What a joke.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
As far as the fabricated yaw damper theory for UAL585 and Flight USAIR487 the damage that would have been done to the airline industry if the truth were told would have been incalculable. Surely you must agree with that.


Why? When you say incalculable, do you mean as in "loss of confidence" in the industry as a whole resulting in the end of the industry?

If so, why didn't we all stop flying after this:

www.iht.com...

en.wikipedia.org...


After the crash, there was substantial speculation that the pilot deliberately crashed the aircraft in a mass homicide/suicide...

...The pilot suicide theory and controversy is very similar to that of EgyptAir Flight 990.


which is here

en.wikipedia.org...


Flight data showed that the flight controls were used to move the elevators in order to initiate and sustain the steep dive...

...The cockpit voice recorder recorded the First Officer repeating "I rely on God" eleven times while the Captain asked repeatedly "What is this?" during the dive.


so what, exactly (heh, heh), were the incalculable losses the industry suffered as a result of these incidents?



new topics




 
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join