It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 03:46 PM

Originally posted by COOL HAND
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.

This is from Wikipedia... I know some people don't place much faith in it as a resource, so take it as you will. I tried to open footnote 28 to read the .pdf file, but it wasn't successful. It's probably a large file and I don't have time to wait for Adobe to download it all.

""Interviews with potential witnesses to the TWA 800 crash were conducted by the FBI; the NTSB was asked not to interview or re-interview witnesses because multiple interviews could lead to difficulties in any potential future criminal prosecution.[28] No verbatim records of the witness interviews were produced; instead the agents who conducted the interviews wrote summaries of the interviews which they then submitted.[28] Witnesses were not asked to review or correct the documents.[28] After the FBI closed their active criminal investigation, the summaries were handed over to the NTSB (with personal information of the witnesses redacted), who then formed a witness group to review these documents.[28]...

...Of these 258 witnesses, 38 reported that the streak was ascending vertically or nearly so, 18 indicated that it originated from the surface of the earth, and 7 reported that it originated at the horizon.[29]


[edit on 29-11-2007 by tezzajw]

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:04 PM

Streak of light was when the plane was heading upwards.

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 07:00 PM

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by minesweeper

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

No argument hear, but I think people are looking to deep into most theories due to their bias and already established mistrust of the government (especially in a arena such as this one). Don’t get me wrong, I don’t trust the government ether after such events like waco. It is a institution comprised of man and subject to greed and corruption. people forget that Islamic terrorist have been a long established enemy of the U.S. and Binladen has also taken credit for it and promised more in the future. Is that a surefire explanation for such an event, no. there is always room for questions of any event. I also don’t buy the theory that it was government initiated to start the Iraq war, they could have done that back in ’93. As for Bush"s faults, what president has had none (pretty much it’s own thread), they have all been shady to some degree or another.

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 07:40 PM
Is Rudi Dekkers even a pilot?

I can't find any references stating that he's a pilot, much less a flight instructor.

It may be helpful to know his experience and qualifications if he is going to state that he himself couldn't fly the airplane's or the hijackers.

The interview he gave didn't say that he was a flight instructor, it just said that he was the owner of Huffman aviation.

Is this something that I missed earlier in the thread?

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 07:46 PM
Originally posted by deltaboy

Streak of light was when the plane was heading upwards.

Thanks for the post deltaboy. Whoever made that video doesn't know how airplanes fly.

First of all in the climb, with a speed at 300 knots, the forces that are acting on the airplane are the wings which are giving it lift but attempting to pitch it down, and the tail which is essentially an upside down wing. Its giving lift but is imparting that lift downward to counteract the downward pitch that the wing is giving to the fuselage.

This is why the strongest area on a fuselage is along the top because that is where all the load is.

Everything is now balanced. If you now remove the forward fuselage you have instantly changed the dynamics. The tail, which has been forcing the tail down to counteract the nose pitch down forces of lift, has nothing to counterbalance it and will instantly attempt to do a back flip. But in my opinion those instantaneous loads would cause the outer wing panels to separate and cause instant destruction.

In any case there cold not possibly be any lazily gliding up as depicted in the video. It is a farce that could not happen in real life. There would be no upward travel. There would only be instantaneous destruction.

The lights that people saw rising up in the air was the missile that was fired from the U.S. Navy boat that launched it.

I believe that video was initially made by the CIA and should be used as a joke in aerodynamic classes.

But thanks for the post and the video.

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 08:50 PM

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 10:05 PM

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

My English is not perfect. Go back and read your early posts.

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.

It's also very unlikely that two pilots in exactly the same type of plane, would kill themselves in exactly the same way in the course of two and a half years with a fabricated NSTB report for one reason and one reason only.

You think it (the report) is impossible.

And the Eastwinds incident was what? An attempted suicide? Or was it just made up? Is that the only way you can explain it?

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

Well behaved people don't make pethetic discrediting attempts picking out termonology and English mistakes.

Thanks for the post.

[edit on 29/11/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by johnlear

Capt Lear knows aerodynamics, he gave a very good explanation, better than I would if I had tried (been a long time since I was an Instructor)
Question -- is there a TWA 800 thread? Or, has it already been covered too much? IT still fascinates me...

(sometimes I'd just like to hike down into the Grand Canyon and forget about everything...)

(signed), TJ

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 04:08 AM

Originally posted by johnlear
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?

How about Tailhook? Does that one ring a bell?

Here's a story by Jack Cashill:

Story seems a particularly apt word...

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.

A retired USN Reserve Commander. Well, that sure makes him a top-drawer source...anyway, on with the show...

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.”

Let me see if I've got this straight, the retired USNR Cmmdr, emailed Cashil to tell Cashil about something he (the USNR Cmmdr ret.) said in a conversation? Talk about turning your usual whistle-blower theory on its head. I'm sure it's normally that someone writes/e-mails/phones with something that was told to them, not by them...

Which doesn't even get to the fact that I'm not a US citizen, let alone a retired USN anything, and I know what the letters LAM mean when suffixed upon Tomahawk...

Thanks for a link to a table of contents, very helpful...

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.

Or, possibly, for stealing evidence, which is a crime in most of the countries I know...

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.

It would help if you explained why the charges were, like, "bogus", dude...

Again with the table of contents...

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.

Why, were they involved?

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.

Got an ISBN for that book? Might make it easier for a few of us to acquire...

I have been told that every single crew member was shipped to different stations around the world.

I have been told Harold Holt was picked up by a Chinese submarine...

This would probably be normal Navy procedure to keep anyone from discussing the matter.

"Probably"? Oh, man. As opposed to a direct order with the threat of prosecution under whatever the US equivalent of the Official Secrets Act is, not to mention a simple court martial for the disobeying of a direct order...Unless I'm very much mistaken, the Judge Advocate General's Corps do not have to make transcripts public.

Besides all of which, your "probable" solution to keeping something silent is to spread the source of any possible rumour across the globe? When sailors arrive at new assignments, they always talk about where they've been before. You don know the origin of the term "scuttlebut"?

The USN is a large beauracracy, but it ain't that large, and beauracrats tend to notice things like an entire crew being transferred, or having their promotions capped, or leaving the navy. Then you've got beauracrats wondering what the hell is going on...

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.

Because that's going to stifle the story.

"Hey, Chief Jones is dead, shot himself."
"Really, oh, man, that sucks *internal monologue* and only last night he was telling me about the TWA shoot-down, wow, still, couldn't be related."

That's quite an imagination you have there, John.

I have been told by actual sailors that when a boat fires a missile the boat is locked down, the crew is not standing around on the deck to observe the launch. The only ones who *know* that a missile has been fired are on the bridge, in CIC and in the weapons bay. Everybody else heard it from someone how was told it by someone who was actually there.

As for keeping sailors quiet...that's a laugh. Nobody talks like servicemen with a secret. Besides the fact that I have had soldiers, including one who was in-theatre, but not a witness, tell me that a posthumous medal recipient was fragged by his own troops, there are other servicemen and women who believe the "honour" of their service is not upheld by keeping a murder, or murders, as the case may be, secret, but, in fact, quite the reverse, by exposing them.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 02:46 PM
I am not a pilot, I know nothing about flying planes and I certainly don't feel like reading through 12 pages of posts, and I don't like getting off topic so I will just respond ot the prison planet video.

If the terrorists were in control, they could of easily made the pilots do the flying. (maybe they tried to fly the plane but couldn't so forced the pilots to do it) maybe they never went to flight training school and it was just a cover up, but it doesn't matter.

I did hear somewhere that pilots are trained not to fly planes into buildings, that they aren't supposed to give into terrorist's demands. But unfortunately human beings are not perfect and quite often in moments of fear we give in to absured demands, or forget our training, only care about ourselves, or just do something incredibly stupid, as the pilots may of done.

Maybe the planes were fitted with remote control devices as a failsafe (which seems a little unlikely, why wouldn't they just do that and NOT use the terrorists)

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 02:47 PM
Fact-767's and 757's were both with built in remote controlled systems and could be flown without a pilot. LOOK IT UP!
Fact-It takes many hours of training and knowledge of the instrument panels, emergency moves, and be able to fly by sight. This is almost impossible because you are traveling 100's of miles per hour. Just look how easy it is to wreck a car at 120MPH. Large planes are flown by instrument with direction from the control tower that also watches for other planesfrom above, below, and side. Normally when you get close to where you want to be you slow the engines to come down. Those planes that hit the towers and whatever hit the pentagon were full power That is like speeding up to make a turn. This would be possible by remote controll because the controller is not effected by G-force.
Fact-Pilots that watched the 2nd plane hit went to their simulator and tried to do the same as the terrorists/inside job, and they could not do it the first time.
Fact-NORAD did nothing. They caught and turned back dozens and dozens of planes in the past yet on that day it was 0.
Fact-Chaney took over the drills on that day. He had a memo sent to the generals from Rumsfield that told them (June 1st, 2001) that Chaney had the shootdown powers. This is the first time ever that the generals didn't have those powers.
Fact- The head of the Dept. of Transportation was in the bunker of the Whit House with Chaney. He told congress that an aid came in telling Chaney the plane was 50 miles out. This went on until it was 10 miles out. The aid asked Chaney if the order still stands. Chaney whipped his head around and said of course the order still stands, why did you hear anything different? He was speaking of the plane that hit the Pentagon because the only other plane was an hour from coming down. The order had to be STAND DOWN.
Fact- If the missile had hit head on it would have got the Rumsfield office and 100's or 1,000's injured or killed. The plane did a 180 and hit the only part being remodeled. This is also where important papers about the missing Trillions and the accountants. Pilots agree that at that speed a pilot would undergo such G-force he would have passed out.
Fact-In May of 2001 the Pilots were told they can no longer have a gun in the safebox of the cockpits.
Fact-Only 22% of all the supposed deaths on the planes have filed for wrongful deaths of family members.Hmmm
Fact-The Neocons already wrote a roadmap with a comment that their planes may take a long time unless they had an event like a new Pearl Harbor. Look at the PENAC doc. "Rebuilding America's Defences"
Fact-There are steps a government has taken to overthrow their people like Germany. Google 10 steps to Fascism. Look at how far they have gone in those ten steps. We are now through 9 and only 10 is left.
Fact-If you don't wake up and scream to all you know 911 will be remembered as the warmup.
Fact-The perfect plan of all this is to finally wipe out 85% of the planet. It is their bio's and books they have written. They arn't afraid because most people don't read books anymore. Lazy TV watchers. Damn, Why do you think it is called PROGRAMMING!?
Fact-Buildings don't fall into dust! If building do fall they don't fall into the path of most resistance as fast as freefalling.
Fact-Jet fuel in open air burns coolest unlike a gas burner where it has ozygen fed to get the hot blue flame.
Fact-Jet fuel cannot melt hi-grade steel or even get it weakened. Large steel beams work as a heatsink and spreads the heat over its suface where it cools.
So much more...
Look, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and flys it must be a duck.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by jondular

Wow, jondular, you sure know a lot of 'Facts' to cite your sources?

I'm sure many in the ATS community would love to do some 'Fact' checking...

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 09:32 PM

Fact-767's and 757's were both with built in remote controlled systems and could be flown without a pilot. LOOK IT UP!


Could you link me to information about that system? I have, but the article I was linked to was so poor and riddled with bugs I want to make sure I have the right one.

Fact-It takes many hours of training and knowledge of the instrument panels, emergency moves, and be able to fly by sight.


[edit on 30/11/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:28 AM
Folks, 'JimmyCarterIsSmarter' knows what the heck he/she is talking about. I have a lot of my stuff in storage, so exact details aren't at my fingertips, but this ATS member from lovely downunder is spot on!

BTW, Melbourne is a beautiful city, can't wait to go back.

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:34 AM
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

HowlrunnerIV, that's Linda Park, your avatar! She was Hoshi Sato on 'Enterprise'...

(sorry, not topical, just cool...)


posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 05:47 AM

Originally posted by johnlear
Based on my 19,000 hours of flying over 40 years in over a hundred different aircraft including 1, 2, 3 and 4 engine jet and most of it as a command pilot or instructing another pilot and having instructed both in Cessna 172s and other light airplanes and knowing what it takes to fly an airplane through the sky at 500 mph and hit a 208 foot target with an airplane with the wingspan of 156 feet I find many of the comments on this thread remarkably if not totally ignorant about flying a Boeing 757 sized aircraft with little or no experience in that type aircraft.

If there were hijackers on those airplanes that allegedly hit the WTC the hijackers themselves were not flying the airplane. There is no way, as some have said on this thread, that once in the air they could have hit the building. There is no way, none, zero that that could happen. Much less twice.

Its a fantasy. Its a hoax. Its a PsyOp. No arab hijackers could have possibly flown those airplanes into the World Trade Center towers, towers that are 208 feet wide at 500 mph.

But your posts are appreciated even if they irritate the aeronautically informed.

Would it be possible for someone to tamper with the automatic pilot and enter a trajectory to the WTF? Perhaps there never were any terrorists after all, just manipulations.

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by TheOracle

Thanks for the question, TheOracle.

The ability to remote control a B767 or B757? No, not in my experience or opinion.

Besides having flown the real thing, I also fly model Radio Control airplanes. They are designed and built for hobby/amusement purposes.

But, there exist UAVs, specially designed and highly specialised for Military applications. They are specifically designed for their mission...a B757/B767 was not designed, as far as I know, to be remotely controlled in any way, shape or form. To retro-fit? Well, possible. Plausible? Without anyone knowing? And to pull it off perfectly, first time? Unlikely.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 10:21 PM
WAAY off topic...reply to post by weedwhacker

I know. I like it for two reasons: 1. She was Hoshi and 2. Linda Park is Wally West's wife (now that should put me squarely in the "geek" box), plus, let's face it, she's a beautiful woman.

Not to get too unreconstructed, Australian and male here, but Linda's been bumped down my list since Grace (no relation) Park started playing Boomer...

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:08 AM
I am not a pilot. I am an aviation enthusiast. One might say that I am a dweeb who reads about airplanes a lot and flies MSFS2004 far too much. I just love planes. I always have, as far back as I can remember.

I find the hologram theory put forth by John Lear very interesting and worthy of serious consideration and here is just a couple of reasons why.

NOTE: Most of the information in this post can be found in a PDF entitled "Remote Takeover on 9-11 A Critical Analysis" I would credit the author but I don't see his name anywhere in the PDF. Maybe I'm blind.

I tried to condense the relevant material to fit the 4000 character limit. It's a great read and it explains a bit about the 757/767 systems that would come into play in a remote control scenario.

A civilian 767/757 can not be flown without a pilot. Someone has to put inputs into the FMS and AFCS and other places as well. ( These two items are the primary input sources for the autopilot). It will land itself but it must be programmed to do so by the pilot.

The autopilot system is very complicated and just disconnecting it would have been trouble for the 9-11 hijackers if all they had was the minimal training described in the official story.

I've always leaned toward the remote control theory, concerning the three planes on 9-11 that hit their targets.

I do not believe someone with a 1000 hours in a Cessna could fly the plane, navigate the plane, execute the required maneuvers and maintain control of the plane, and then hit those towers going 400+ knots. They would most likely get lost... if they managed to stay straight and level long enough, and crash.

As far as I'm concerned at this point, the alleged hijackers could not fly the planes as the official story states.

But then I did a little research and found that sneaking a remote control system on-board would also be a very difficult thing to do. My theory was in trouble. Here's why.

The 767/757 monitors itself extremely well using a system known as EICAS.

It's capabilities are impressive to say the least. It monitors over 400 engine and aircraft systems inputs constantly and alerts the pilot to any faults found in any of them. Any incorrect voltage values or what have you and the computer flashes the info to the pilots. The EICAS computer is also constantly checking itself. It's quite sensitive and I have read that it alerts a little too often even. The RC system would have to be undetected by the EICAS. Good luck.

While I am not saying it is impossible, modifying an airliner equipped with EICAS is problematic and a bad choice for RC. The pilot would most likely call maintenance over the EICAS warnings, the RC apparatus would be discovered, and the plot foiled. In fact the the pilot probably wouldn't even have to call maintenance, the plane sends out emails to the mechanics on it's own.

A pre EICAS plane would be a much more logical choice, an older 747 for example.

If you rule out the hijackers flying the planes, and you rule out RC flying the planes, there is an obvious problem.

Holograms, as wild as it sounds, does solve these problems. I guess I'm going to be boning up on holograms now.

I've also always suspected that demolitions were used. But I've never had a theory to fit demo charges into before.

So I wonder, was there molten steel in the basement or not. Was the WTC actually closed for a period of time, a week b4 9-11? Is there really seismic evidence of pre impact explosions? Does the photographic evidence support hologram use in any way? Where would the hologram need to be projected from and were these locations available and accessible, and if so, who was there?

Many, many questions to be answered. Thanks Mr. Lear for sharing your view on how this tragic crime happened. Very, very interesting.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:46 AM
reply to post by Aircow
Disconnecting the autopilot was difficult for them? I can think of two extremely easy ways to do it. 1. Push the autopilot disconnect button on the yoke. On the planes I worked on it was a nice red button right near your thumb. 2. Pull the autopilot circuit breakers. The breakers are all marked. Admittedly that`s the more difficult way, but either way will work.

As far as I have ever seen the autopilot disconnect is basically the same whatever plane you fly that has an autopilot.

[edit on 11/30/2009 by Zaphod58]

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in