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: 11
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 12:13 AM
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.


You know, John, again I gotta say


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You know, John, the statement "because I said so" doesn't validate an argument unless I'm ten years old, you're my dad and you want to change the channel.





What damage are you talking about? People would be less inclined to fly because one (of two) pilots might be suicidal?


The government din't see it that way.


Right. The government thought people would sleep better in their beds each night knowing that Boeing were busy building Pintos with wings, rather than knowing the odd pilot might have personal problems. What, they theorised that the people would start to think USAir = US Postal Service?

Let's see now..."Hmm, I think I'll fly, even although I know those 'planes are bad" or "I think I'll fly, even although I know the 'planes are good, but the pilots might be bad."?

Really, it's easier to sell the message: "The plane crashed because it was poorly designed and poorly built, but we're working on it and some time in teh near future they should all be fixed" than it is to sell the message: "The planes are all fine, no problem there, they are not going to crash. But we had one pilot who went nuts, so we're going to give all our pilots routine testing." ?

edit: quotes

[edit on 29-11-2007 by HowlrunnerIV]




posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
To start out I personally don’t believe in the 9-11 conspiracy or this instructors story. I think it’s a poor attempt at C.Y.A. Down playing the ability of the bad guys in question to beat the heat. For instance if I was a shooting instructor and someone paid for my service, did well than turned around and used the skills I had tough him to pull off a mass killing spree at a school or work place and took his own life. I could turn around also and say he was a poor student, didn’t finish my course, had trouble dealing with recoil and couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn. Nobody would be the wiser and it’s my word against a dead man.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by minesweeper
 


By the definition of the word conspiracy, there is one.

I don't really subscribe to some of the more outlandish theories (as I'm a skeptic) but there are lots of things that just don't add up.

One of the main problems is people not looking at the existing evidence on its merits - instead you get a "don't believe it" before the evidence has even been looked at.

Whilst I'm not a fanatic, I do have an open mind, and after watching loosechange2, my mind opened further to the fact that we are and have been told very little about what really goes on.

And this is my whole approach to the subject (apart from the outlandish) - keep an open mind.

Bush and his whole family have done things that would have got lesser mortals locked up - whether they are involved at some level, I don't know, but with things the way they stand, nothing would surprise me.

Did you believe saddam had WMD's?

Do you think the current rhetoric about Iran is about protecting national interests?

All I can suggest is reading some of the more sensible 9/11 threads with an open mind - you might be surprised, after all, we're here to deny ignorance....



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by minesweeper
 


minesweeper,

A very interesting analogy. Isn't ait lmost the case when, after the fact, someone has to come in and say 'Not MY fault!' ?

Lots of 'CYA', or 'CMOA' going on.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
Amazing.

Yet, still there are many who believe jumping into a 767 and "flying" it is just like piloting a Cessna or such..

Now, assume they could fly it (which the guy who trained them says they couldn't!), could they put them into a tower, measuring 207 feet wide, and get the wings in so neatly that measure 156 feet?

That's 25.5 feet each side to play with. One of these planes got it almost bang on, the other did a pretty good job even considering the impressive diving maneouvre at the end..

Food for thought!


Download the demo version of any flight simulator software game and you will see that once the plane is airborne, it it not all that difficult to fly it into a fixed object. It is certainly simpler than landing a Cessna safely on a runway.

Flying an airplane properly is a lot harder then ignoring air traffic control and steering it into a big building.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter




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?



Thanks for your post JCIS. You mentioned "controls" plural. There is only one power control unit.


And then over a year later there was a 'attempted suicide', involving ANOTHER 737 yawing heavily?


Actually the UAL accident was March 3, 1992 and the USAIR accident was Sept 8, 1994 thats 2 1/2 years between. The reason I mention that is because it is very unlikely that if a yaw damper problem actually occurred that it would only manifest itself every 2 or 3 years.

Knowledgeable people don't refer to directional excursions as "yawing heavily". The are called "hardovers".

"Thermal shock" is a term invented like "Tidal lock". These fancy sounding names are invented to fabricate excuses for whats really happening. "Thermal shock" proposes that a high temperature of hydraulic pressure would somehow "lock" the PCU and then somehow reverse the direction of the fluid. This is stupid on its face. But supposing that were to occur the override values for design of the yaw damper are 80 pounds (certificated by Part 25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations) which can easily be over ridden by the pilot which is why it is designed that way.


No automatic device or control in an airplane can be designed or installed the hydraulic servo of which cannot be over ridden by the pilot. There is a value assigned to each control. To propose that a hardover, that can be over ridden by an 80 pound push on opposite rudder resulted in an uncontrollable roll is ridiculous.


Why not push the nose DOWN?


I hope I have explained in enough detail why this would not be necessary.


Turn off centre fuel tanks so you run dry early?


I do not understand what you are trying to say here. The point of the airworthiness directive was to not let the fuel go lower than the top of the fuel pump in the center tank so that, allegedly, the pump couldn't arc.

In fact, all pumps are sealed units and in no way shape or form is anything exposed that can arc. It was a ridiculous effort to cover up the accidental shootdown of TWA Flight 800 by the U.S. Navy and it was carried to asinine extremes at a heavy cost to all.


What a joke.


I don't see it that way. I see it as government forcing private industry to pay for its mistakes. So what is new?

Thanks for the post.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Let's say you have a really lousy driver who can't park or use standard stick and stuff, and you put him in a car on a completely empty freeway and ask him to hit the orange cone you put on the double yellow. Wouldn't surprise me if he did


[edit on 29-11-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Capt Lear, regarding the center fuel pump question...

The details escape me, but please bear with me.

I was taught that the immersed pumps used the surrounding fuel as a 'heat sink' for cooling purposes. We were told that, even when the tank was 'dry', there was always an amount of unusable fuel there to provide sufficient cooling for the motor.

There is (or was two years ago) a directive involving the B737NG and the B757 to stop burning from the center tank when quantity reached about 1000lbs. Theory was, 'Don't let the pumps run 'dry'.

While we complied, it was after all the regulation, and was also a limitation written in to our Flight Manuals, we still had to wonder..."Why was it OK (to burn the tank dry) when the airplane was certified, but not now?"

Thanks. As I have pointed out, you know more than me....



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Originally posted by weedwhacker



I was taught that the immersed pumps used the surrounding fuel as a 'heat sink' for cooling purposes. We were told that, even when the tank was 'dry', there was always an amount of unusable fuel there to provide sufficient cooling for the motor


This is all correct. The reason that there is still unuseable fuel in the tank is that for various reasons they were not able to design the pumps into the lowest portion of the tank. The unuseable fuel is never very much.


There is (or was two years ago) a directive involving the B737NG and the B757 to stop burning from the center tank when quantity reached about 1000lbs. Theory was, 'Don't let the pumps run 'dry'.


This may or may not have been part of the TWA Flight 800 nonsense about leaving enough fuel to cover the pumps so they wouldn't arc. There is nothing to arc. The pumps are sealed units.

Short story:

When all of this nonsense was coming down I was flying the cargo version of the L-1011. We had a contract to pick up Boeing 777 engine cowlings at the Wichita Plant and fly them to Boeing Field in Seattle.

You talk about getting an earful from the Boeing guys both in Wichita and Seattle! They were livid about the arcing pump nonsense that the FAA forced down their throats. It was as if they were blaming me! But heck I was agreeing with them as we were taking a 3000 pound hit on the L-1011.

Of course the guys I was talking to didn't know about the 'secret' 'quid pro quo' on the McDonnell Douglas merger.


While we complied, it was after all the regulation, and was also a limitation written in to our Flight Manuals, we still had to wonder..."Why was it OK (to burn the tank dry) when the airplane was certified, but not now?"


Because the airplane was certified before the U.S. Navy accidentally shot down TWA Flight 800 which was, I believe, the fifth civilian airliner that the U.S. Navy has shot down accidentally. (5 civilian airliners shot down made the U.S. Navy eligible for "Ace" status.). And in order the cover up for the U.S. Navy we all had to pretend that fuel pumps arced causing exposions.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Because the airplane was certified before the U.S. Navy accidentally shot down TWA Flight 800 which was, I believe, the fifth civilian airliner that the U.S. Navy has shot down accidentally. (5 civilian airliners shot down made the U.S. Navy eligible for "Ace" status.). And in order the cover up for the U.S. Navy we all had to pretend that fuel pumps arced causing exposions.


john,
Since you seem to know so much about the incident, how about a few details? I have asked for them before, and no one has answered me.

Just a few simple facts, like what kind of weapon they used, what ship was it, etc.

I seem to recall that the Navy went so far as to reveal the presence of ballistic missile subs in the area, since people were still not convinced that the Navy did not do it.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Capt Lear,

Great information. Thank you for clearing it up.

I mentioned before how my heart would break if I were presented with evidence of such duplicity especially when MY life was on the line as I flew those airplanes. (Yes, I know...we can also be passengers as well. I am a passenger now, too. So, this is an important issue to unveil.).

Best...



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Oh, dear...

Capt Lear, I noticed the last bit of your post...I am supposing it was meant to be tongue in cheek, but it left a little stale taste in my mouth.

In case you're not sure, I'm referring to the 'Ace' reference.

OK, just my little bit of comment.

IT is difficult at best, to write and be funny. We can try -- I usually fail, as I've learned. So, I stick to facts and clarity. This in NO WAY implies or infers that others do not, it's just what I strive towards...

Best....



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Let's say you have a really lousy driver who can't park or use standard stick and stuff, and you put him in a car on a completely empty freeway and ask him to hit the orange cone you put on the double yellow. Wouldn't surprise me if he did

Buddahsystem, why do you continue to draw useless analogies to driving cars, when the thread is about flying aeroplanes?

Most idiots on Earth can drive a car with very limited instruction time. I know, they overtake me in dangerous moves every day when I am on the road. Cars are driven in a two dimensional plane, with only a left-right turn required to steer them.

However, very few people on Earth would be able to pilot a 767 with only limited instruction. Planes are flown in a three dimensional space. There's extra degrees of difficulties involved to fly them, with pitch, roll and yaw. Already, we have three axis of motion to consider against only one axis of motion for the car.

Flying a plane, specifically a 767, is not like driving a car!

[edit on 29-11-2007 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Originally posted by COOL HAND


john,
Since you seem to know so much about the incident, how about a few details? I have asked for them before, and no one has answered me.


Thanks for the post COOL HAND. The Navy has some excellent practice in covering up their accidents and help from the very top. Does the name Richard Clarke ring a bell? Or maybe Sandy Berger?



Just a few simple facts, like what kind of weapon they used, what ship was it, etc.



OK. How about 270 eyewitnesses to a missile none of whom were asked to testify at the NTSB cover-up...oops, I mean hearing. Pretty slick, eh?

Here's a story by Jack Cashill:



What prompts this column is an email I received last week from a retired USNR Commander and former TWA pilot, with whom I had had no prior contact.

He recounted a conversation that he had shortly after the mid-air destruction of TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996 off the coast of Long Island. He had a particular interest in the plane’s demise for two reasons. One is that he was a qualified accident investigator. The second is that he had flown that very same flight a week earlier.

"It had to be a bloody missile, probably an un-armed Tomahawk, going for center-of-mass,” he said to a senior flight manager of his acquaintance. “They were most likely going for a target drone and testing their capability to go-through normal aircraft traffic to get at the target.”



www.cashill.com...


This part refers to James Sanders being jailed for using a portion of a seat cover to prove it was missile that went through First Class.




My partner in this investigation, James Sanders, had developed any number of discreet first hand sources in 1996-1997, but all of these sources “went away after we were indicted.” The “we” refers to James and his wife, Elizabeth, at the time a TWA trainer, both of whom were eventually convicted of the bogus charge of conspiracy to steal airplane parts.



www.cashill.com...


Now you want to know what weapon? What Ship? You might as well ask the Navy for information on its new Fleet 21 fully-automated battleship or 70 foot nuclear-powered Fast Attack Sub.



I seem to recall that the Navy went so far as to reveal the presence of ballistic missile subs in the area, since people were still not convinced that the Navy did not do it.


One of the crewmembers on the Navy ship that fired the missile called his father and said, "Dad, we did it." A full account of this in Sander's book.

I have been told that every single crew member was shipped to different stations around the world. This would probably be normal Navy procedure to keep anyone from discussing the matter. If any crew members were caught discussing the incident for any reason I would imagine they would commit suicide with 2 bullets in the back of their head.

Thanks for the post COOL HAND, your navel input is truly appreciated.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Buddahsystem, why do you continue to draw useless analogies to driving cars, when the thread is about flying aeroplanes?


I disagree with your assessment that this analogy is useless. Analogies prove to be a very useful learning tool.


Most idiots on Earth can drive a car with very limited instruction time. I know, they overtake me in dangerous moves every day when I am on the road. However, very few people on Earth would be able to pilot an aeroplane like a 767 with only limited instruction.


You seem to be willingly missing the point I made. Piloting a plane involves great many things, and steering it towards a target can be the easiest of them all. It's not like landing. There were opinions from pro pilots posted on this board that this was entirely doable. They didn't attempt to land, or even to take-off. Hence my analogy with the lousy driver: once somebody started a car for them and put them on the freeway (or a dried up salt lake, which is a better analogy) they'll be probably going w/o major problem and hit that orange cone. They don't have to pass, signal, break, or park.


Flying a plane, specifically a 767, is not like driving a car!


duh.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I disagree with your assessment that this analogy is useless. Analogies prove to be a very useful learning tool.

Sure, when the analogies are comparing similar situations, I agree. However, a one-dimensional left-right steer to control a car, is not like a three-dimensional, pitch, roll and yaw steer to control a plane.



There were opinions from pro pilots posted on this board that this was entirely doable.

There were also opinions from pro pilots who posted that it would be impossible.


buddahsystem

tezzajw
Flying a plane, specifically a 767, is not like driving a car!

duh.

Then why use the analogy if the two are fundamentally different? Thanks for the duh, though, it really helps to explain your position.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post COOL HAND. The Navy has some excellent practice in covering up their accidents and help from the very top. Does the name Richard Clarke ring a bell? Or maybe Sandy Berger?

None of whom had anything to do with the Navy.



OK. How about 270 eyewitnesses to a missile none of whom were asked to testify at the NTSB cover-up...oops, I mean hearing. Pretty slick, eh?

You are just dodging my question. No Navy ship that has the ability to shoot down an aircraft carries a crew of only 270. Even if it was a Navy ship, junior Sailors are notorious for revealing information they shouldn't. This would have leaked out if the Navy did it. There would have been no way to prevent disclosure.



"It had to be a bloody missile, probably an un-armed Tomahawk, going for center-of-mass,” he said to a senior flight manager of his acquaintance. “They were most likely going for a target drone and testing their capability to go-through normal aircraft traffic to get at the target.”



Is this guy qualified on the Tomahawk? No, I didn't think so. The Tomahawk is a land attack (only) missile. We used to have an anti-shipping version, but they phased that out. Neither one of those has the ability or the capability of hitting an aircraft.



Now you want to know what weapon? What Ship? You might as well ask the Navy for information on its new Fleet 21 fully-automated battleship or 70 foot nuclear-powered Fast Attack Sub.

john, if you don't know just say you don't know. Stop pretending to have info you obviously don't have.



One of the crewmembers on the Navy ship that fired the missile called his father and said, "Dad, we did it." A full account of this in Sander's book.

Whatever, why didn't any of his 269 friends join him in revealing this. Does the book go so far as to mention what the sailor did on the ship?



I have been told that every single crew member was shipped to different stations around the world. This would probably be normal Navy procedure to keep anyone from discussing the matter. If any crew members were caught discussing the incident for any reason I would imagine they would commit suicide with 2 bullets in the back of their head.

What? Who told you that line of crap? Spreading the Sailors around would actually increase the likelihood that they would reveal something.

If what you are saying is true, then give me the ship name and I can look up their operational history for the time period and confirm if an entire crew was transferred at once.



Thanks for the post COOL HAND, your navel input is truly appreciated.



You are quite welcome. I am always happy to share my knowledge with people who don't know any better about the NAVY.

[edit on 29/11/07 by COOL HAND]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Originally posted by COOL HAND



originally posted by johnlear
OK. How about 270 eyewitnesses to a missile none of whom were asked to testify at the NTSB cover-up...oops, I mean hearing. Pretty slick, eh?




You are just dodging my question. No Navy ship that has the ability to shoot down an aircraft carries a crew of only 270.



The 270 people I am talking about were on the shore of Long Island watching the missile rise up and hit TWA Flight 800.


Even if it was a Navy ship, junior Sailors are notorious for revealing information they shouldn't. This would have leaked out if the Navy did it. There would have been no way to prevent disclosure.


I disagree with you COOL HAND. The Navy has probably the best tight lipped, closed mouth personnel of any military force world wide. Junior Sailors are not notorious for revealing information they shouldn't. This may have gone on many, many years ago but it certainly isn't true today. That is the reason that many secret Navy projects are not classified "Secret" or"Top Secret" because (1) the classification process in itself draws attention and (2) there are very, very, very few leaks.

Just take the F-19 as an example. The original order, the funding, the construction and operation was kept so secret because very little of the project went on paper. There wasn't even any congressional oversight. I believe that the airplane may be retired now as it has been operational since about 1980. Thats 27 years.



Is this guy qualified on the Tomahawk? No, I didn't think so. The Tomahawk is a land attack (only) missile. We used to have an anti-shipping version, but they phased that out. Neither one of those has the ability or the capability of hitting an aircraft.


Whatever misile the Navy fired it did a darn good job of downing TWA Flight 800.


john, if you don't know just say you don't know. Stop pretending to have info you obviously don't have.


I don't know what weapon the U.S. Navy used to accidentally shoot down TWA Flight 800 a Boeing 747, off the shore of Long Island in 1996, nor do I know what U.S. Navy ship was used to launch the U.S. Navy missile that accidentally shot down the Boeing 747 that belonged to and was crewed by Trans World Airlines.


Whatever, why didn't any of his 269 friends join him in revealing this. Does the book go so far as to mention what the sailor did on the ship?


I believe that you misunderstood my statement about the 270 witnesses. They were the number of people who witnessed the unknown U.S. Navy missile, launched from the unknown U.S. Navy ship streak up from the ocean and accidentally blow up TWA's Boeing 747. Not one of them was called to testify at the NTSB coverup....er...hearing.


What? Who told you that line of crap? Spreading the Sailors around would actually increase the likelihood that they would reveal something.


I have a different opinion.


If what you are saying is true, then give me the ship name and I can look up their operational history for the time period and confirm if an entire crew was transferred at once.


I don't have the name COOL HAND. But if you can find a Naval Publication titled "COVER UPS" it will be listed along with Thresher and Scorpion.

Thanks for the post COOL HAND, your navel input is truly appreciated.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


COOLHAND, I enjoyed reading the exchange between you and Capt Lear.

At the end of Capt Lear's post, he wrote the word 'Navel'...unless he intentionally misspelled, I think he was referring to your belly button?

My point...keep your tongue firmly in cheek at all times, and lighten up now and then.

My opinion? John Lear would not misspell...I think I got his humour, but I could be wrong....



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlearThe 270 people I am talking about were on the shore of Long Island watching the missile rise up and hit TWA Flight 800.

Exactly what orifice are you pulling that one from? I have never heard of such a high number of CONFIRMED witnesses to the event. Perhaps you would be so kind as to share your source on that one?



I disagree with you COOL HAND. The Navy has probably the best tight lipped, closed mouth personnel of any military force world wide. Junior Sailors are not notorious for revealing information they shouldn't. This may have gone on many, many years ago but it certainly isn't true today. That is the reason that many secret Navy projects are not classified "Secret" or"Top Secret" because (1) the classification process in itself draws attention and (2) there are very, very, very few leaks.

And how many junior sailors have you been exposed to? How many military briefings have you attended that have a heavy junior sailor presence?

I can speak from experience, junior enlisted Sailors can't (for the most part) keep their mouths shut. I have seen too many instances of them having clearences revoked because they talked when the should not have.



Just take the F-19 as an example. The original order, the funding, the construction and operation was kept so secret because very little of the project went on paper. There wasn't even any congressional oversight. I believe that the airplane may be retired now as it has been operational since about 1980. Thats 27 years.

Whatever man, your imagination is working overtime again.



Whatever misile the Navy fired it did a darn good job of downing TWA Flight 800.

There were no traces of the propellants or explosives that the Navy uses that were found on the aircraft. There were no Navy ships within range of TWA 800 when it came down. Where did this mythical missile come from john?



I don't know what weapon the U.S. Navy used to accidentally shoot down TWA Flight 800 a Boeing 747, off the shore of Long Island in 1996, nor do I know what U.S. Navy ship was used to launch the U.S. Navy missile that accidentally shot down the Boeing 747 that belonged to and was crewed by Trans World Airlines.

Let me see if I have this right, you claim the Navy shoot this plane down and you don't know how? Then how can you be so sure? Clue us in on your wealth of "knowledge" so that we may benefit from it.



I believe that you misunderstood my statement about the 270 witnesses. They were the number of people who witnessed the unknown U.S. Navy missile, launched from the unknown U.S. Navy ship streak up from the ocean and accidentally blow up TWA's Boeing 747. Not one of them was called to testify at the NTSB coverup....er...hearing.

Just show me something that says 270 people saw it fall out of the sky and they were not asked to provide any kind of statement, or videotaped testimony and I will stop pestering you on this.



I don't have the name COOL HAND. But if you can find a Naval Publication titled "COVER UPS" it will be listed along with Thresher and Scorpion.

So, to summarize you have no real information and yet you are convinced the Navy did it. Do you really wonder why people question you on this website?



Thanks for the post COOL HAND, your navel input is truly appreciated.



Thanks, your lack of NAVAL input (or knowledge) is something I can't put into the proper words here.

[edit on 29/11/07 by COOL HAND]



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join