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: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I haven't yet gotten into the different theories of the actual day yet, having just put up the one ATS Premium story on the Islamic Terrorists a couple of weeks ago, so I don't yet know that much about the "remote control" idea. Nor do I yet have an opinion on the reality of it having happened that way.

But it would have been a tragic piece of dark humor for the hijackers to have thought they were going to land the planes and be on TV and all, only to have their controls overrode and meet as horrible a fate as those they took hostage.




posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjay

Never thought of this one before, but it definitely works. Would this mean the flight recorders were heavily edited? Could there have been some "drill" involvement/cooperation? Could it be made to look like a malfunction to any pilots?


I'm saying the flight recorders were never recovered, or that if they were they were destroyed/kept in order to make convincing forgeries.

Let me put it like this, if someone else was behind this who wasn't a terrorist, there isn't a chance in hell they won't have gone over every single detail and made sure that it couldn't be followed.

There is one thing we can learn from that, however - that it would take either someone in the aeronautical industry or someone with a lot of knowledge in aeronautical design in order to pull this off.

Which leaves us with a few ideas of who could be behind this, if not the terrorists, of course.*

John, if you could answer my question i'll appreciate it immensely, it'll show that my theory is plausible enough for me to investigate further (or not, as the case may be).



EDIT: *Spies, the Military, The respected companies owning those planes...

My bet is on the CIA.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by Throbber]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
But it would have been a tragic piece of dark humor for the hijackers to have thought they were going to land the planes and be on TV and all, only to have their controls overrode and meet as horrible a fate as those they took hostage.


You can say that again! Did Atta (and others) actually take their passports thinking they would need them after it was all over?



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by adjay

... being totally different systems and engines.

Bearing in mind, this guy is an instructor with many years of experience and they were described as not even being able to manage a Cessna on landing. I'd say he knows a bit of which he speaks.


They are not able to land a Cessna because they aren't interested in it. Just enough to learn how to fly. Hence the hijacking in mid flight, not on takeoff. Jeez man, its not like the terrorists need to go that far to become competent pilots that knows how to take off, get to point A to B and land like professional pilots. Just know how to fly the dam things.




"just how to fly the dam things.


Aye, there's the rub!

A multi-engined commercial jet, like a757/767 simply Does Not Fly Like A Little, Single Engined Cessna!


Aside from the size and weight difference berween the Cessna and the Boeing, which are obvious, there is the daunting matter of managing the off-center thrust differentials inherent in any multi-engined craft.

A little Cessna (of the type the supposed hijackers were to have "trained" on) generates all of its rather modest thrust along its center-line. In a turn of any type, there would be no left/right difference in engine power or thurst.

As a multi-engined aitcraft turns there can be dramatic changes in engine speed and power; differences which increase exponentially with the degree of severity of the turn.

To acquire their multi-engine ratings, pilots are taught to anticipate and control these off-center power changes.

Wannabe pilots, who could barely mange to keep a little single engine plane in the air would be unlikely to manage the skills needed to make "precision" turns in a multi-engined prop plane without crashing.

To posit that, with no actual hands-on training, they could do so in a commercial jet is beyond ludicris!



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Important to note is that the american establishment may not be the cause of this - it may have been any third-party organisation that could profit from this cataclysm.

The american establishment, however, has often profited from such cataclysms by creating it's own stories.

So, if not those in power, then those with power.

EDIT: This is essentially the power that technology has brought upon us - by relying on technology for security we have become vulnerable.

*cough*

For those of you wondering why i believe that particular theory, let's just say that i adhere to the rule "That's how I would do it".

It may be the case that the biggest part of the conspiracy is the cover-up, we're all so damn stuck-in on the f**king flights we've ignored what we can disprove.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by Throbber]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Originally posted by Throbber




John, you say you've got experience, so if you're not the guy to ask i don't know who is - in modern aircraft, is the piloting mostly done electronically?



Most flying, in modern aircraft, is done by the autopilot fed information from the FMS (flight management system) updated with inputs from the navigation system and inputs from the pilots.

Some pilots like to 'hand fly' and they'll disconnect the autopilot and fly the approach. Most landings are hand flown by the pilot.

It would have been impossible for the alleged hijackers to use the autopilot for the approach to and crash into the WTC towers for the simple fact that at that alleged speed (500 mph) any input is going to be highly desensitized which means the autopilot will react very, very slowly to any pilot command so as not to overstress the aircraft at that high speed. And that would have made the corrections necessary to adjust the heading of the aircraft to correct for wind direction and speed in the time available.

So at 733 feet per second (500 mph) you are going to be 43,980 feet or 8.3 miles away from the tower, probably over or abeam Staten Island. The accuracy required to aim a Boeing 767, traveling at 500 mph and hit a 208 foot wide target, dead center is not 'just lucky'. Its impossible.

Its would be impossible for an experienced pilot to do it the first time.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

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.



Pointing and flying is a lot difference to the Pentagon incident.
They were UNABLE to do, what they supposidly did.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Thanks for the info, i had thought about the possibility of an auto-pilot but i wasn't entirely certain if it could work regardless of what the pilots did.

So here's my idea of what went down;

Co-Pilot: Er... aren't we off course?

Pilot: # Bob, You're right - what's going on with this autopilot?

Co-pilot: Don't know, i keep hitting the course-correction icon and it doesn't seem to be responding.

Pilot: *Now feeling disturbing bowel-movements* Call up the nearest ground-control and inform them of the situation.

Co-pilot: Hello? This is flight 11, we are experiencing technical difficulties, is it possible to land at the soonest opportunity?

Pilot: Well, what's he saying?

Co-pilot: *Also feeling disturbing bowel-movements* Er.. There's no answer..

Pilot: Like f*ck there isn't... Alright, take us off autopilot at least, we'll be able to get to where we're meant to be.

Co-pilot: *Sweating* Okay, i hit it.

Pilot: We're still on auto-pilot.

Co-pilot: Do we tell the passengers?

Pilot: No way, we tell them and they'll panic - next thing you know half of them are on the wrong side of the plane and the auto-pilot can't adjust to it.

...

And the rest, as they say - is History.

I'm aware this may seem rather cold-hearted to many people, and i offer no excuse.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I think the remote control hypothesis sheds light on what could've happened to Flight 93. Maybe the events went something like this.

1. The remote control system failed to work with Flight 93.
2. The terrorists planned to land at an airport-totally unacceptable to the plotters...the whole op could be blown if that happened.
3. A pilot was ordered under extreme secrecy to shoot down Flight 93-he was told it was being done to save the Sears Tower.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Hello all,

I hate to be a wet blanket, and with all due respect to Capt Lear, I'm not sure it would be 'impossible' for an experienced pilot to hit the WTC Towers. I'm also a retired airline pilot, 21 years in commercial jets and over a decade prior in single and twin-engine airplanes.

"Impossible" is a strong word. 'Unimaginable', 'improbable' maybe. But I will not argue with the good Captain on this point.

I will float a question: DID these Saudi 'pilots' ever purchase instruction 'time' on a B757 or B767 simulator? A couple of hours' orientation, even for a fairly new, inexperienced, but nevertheless licensed pilot who was intent on only knowing how the airplane controls would 'feel' and how the airplane would react compared to a C172 or a Piper Warrior would give them the confidence to mount this horror. What I find interesting is the ATC tapes that have Atta's voice when he thinks he has selected 'PA' on the audio panel, but instead is transmitting on the ARTCC frequency. (Actually, that happens almost everyday, somewhere in the world...experienced pilots have welcomed pax on the flight, to the amusement, or irritation, of the controllers on the ground and the other airplanes on the frequency).

At least one thing Capt Lear will, I hope, agree with me is about an earlier post saying that a multi-engine airplane is harder to turn than a single-engine...utter nonsense. (Guessing the ATS member was confusing the training we receive in power loss scenarios involving multi-engined airplanes, and the control responses required).

Finally, as to remote controlled B757s or B767s? The FAA conducted a fuel-additive test some years back, equipping a B707 with dummies and ballast and a remote control system. The 'pilot' had a hard time hitting the target on the ground in the way it was planned...perhaps someone can find a video clip? Picture is worth a thousand words.

Thanks for reading...



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   

they irritate the aeronautically informed.

lol.

*asks at PPRUNE*.

There's a lot more to it than pulling a stick around like a pc flight sim.

Care to explain?


The accuracy required to aim a Boeing 767, traveling at 500 mph and hit a 208 foot wide target, dead center is not 'just lucky'. Its impossible.

At airshows, they fly airliners at 400mph very low over runways which are typically less than 125 feet wide.

How is 500mph at an object dramatically larger impossible?

[edit on 27/11/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:51 AM
link   
...If I may add one more thought, well a story really...

I did not fly for United Airlines, but I do know what part of their interview process for potential pilot candidates once included. (Back in the 80s).

A candidate would fly a DC-10 simulator (a three-engined jet) as final test of their multi-part interview. (This is a very sophisticated device that almost exactly re-creates the real airplane). The pilot candidate did not have to have any earlier commercial jet experience to be considered - the examiner was only looking for basic piloting skills.

Airplane's controls are pretty standard, that is, control wheel (aileron and elevator), two rudder pedals and a throttle/throttles. Much like an automobile, basic steering wheel, gas and brake pedals are standard. The details are in secondary control placement...and as I said above, a few hours in a sim will familiarize a person in basic layout...



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:56 AM
link   
It was a bit strange coming across this piece of news straight after watching Loosechange, but a couple of things have stuck in my mind.

The "black box" flight recorders information has not been released - despite some witnesses saying that 3 out of 4 were recovered.

9 of the alleged terrorists are still alive and well.

I know this has been discussed many times, but the official story of how the towers collapsed doesn't make much sense - this goes doubly so for the pentagon incident "oh look, a disappearing plane that doesn't obey the laws of physics" apparently.

I'm still pretty much on the fence regarding government involovement - if anything, I'd love for bush to be involved as it would just confirm what I think of the man and some of his family - but I haven't seen enough evidence to support it, and probably never will.

John Lear has been kind enough to give his view about how difficult it would be to pilot the planes, and I tend to agree with him - at least in this regard.

[edit on 27/11/2007 by budski]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter

The accuracy required to aim a Boeing 767, traveling at 500 mph and hit a 208 foot wide target, dead center is not 'just lucky'. Its impossible.

At airshows, they fly airliners at 400mph very low over runways which are typically less than 125 feet wide.

How is 500mph at an object dramatically larger impossible?


I have video's of a South African 747 being flown to the absolute limit at an airshow by a very experienced pilot. If this was "normal", no doubt this would not be an item of contention, but this is very far from the truth. Pilots you see doing these sorts of things over runways and at airshows are not the kind of pilots refused rental of a Cessna for their dodgy handling and landing.

I would hedge bets that whoever taught them to fly, would have recorded some notion of their skill noticed during training. There is a 25 foot gap either side of a 767 compared to the width of WTC1 or WTC2.

If a guy who was known for doing airshows had flown it dead centre, I doubt there would be much, if any, talk on "how" this was managed.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I must agree with both Weedwhacker and John. Poking holes in the sky with 767 is not the same as puttering around with a 172. This is not Microsoft Flight Sim folks. I have flown both props and jets.

One point John and Weedwhacker didn't point out is the fact that you have to think ahead of the aircraft. With a closure rate of 733 fps you have to be nautical miles ahead.

Hitting the towers first time out well, impossible maybe not but you got better odds in winning the lotto two times in a row than they had of hitting the towers. As for the FMS, I would venture they didn't even have a clue.

[edit on 11/27/2007 by pstrron]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



What makes me chucke is that immediately after being told, categorically by the flight school guy that there was no way they could have done it, the reporter links back to he studio saying how the locals are shocked they had terrorists in their midst.
Did he actually LISTEN to anything the guy told him??



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   
OK

Next logical questions.

What does it take to remotely pilot an aircraft the size of a 767?

How long does it take to convert an aircraft like a 767 to remote control?

Wouldn't someone have noticed that kind of work being done?



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Whats it called when someone presents an inaccurate "fact" as a basis to uphold their belief in a conspiracy?

I trained the 911 hijackers


According to Sakka, Nawaf al-Hazmi[ was a veteran operative who went on to pilot the plane that hit the Pentagon. Although this is at odds with the official account, which says the plane was flown by another hijacker, it is plausible and might answer one of the mysteries of 9/11.

The Pentagon plane performed a complex spiral dive into its target. Yet the pilot attributed with flying the plane “could not fly at all” according to his flight instructors in America. Hazmi, on the other hand, had mixed reviews from his instructors but they did remark on how “adept” he was on his first flight.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by makeitso
Whats it called when someone presents an inaccurate "fact" as a basis to uphold their belief in a conspiracy?


Easy! That's called giving the "official story", as demonstrated on multiple occasions by the current administration!



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Hanjour (& Hamzi for that matter) are meant to be 'dead ends' and
controversial elements so disinformation can be spread around.

Hanjour (or his clone) was seen in mid 1995 leading a group of 6 other young middle eastern men to flight school classes in Scottsdale AZ.

he was also most likely in Meas, and the Goodyear Airport some
20 mi. west of Phoenix where the Oxford Aviation trains pilots
for middle eastern commercial airlines, (Iraq Airways, Kuwait Airways)
along with some european airlines. Goodyear also is home to a
Lufthansa training center,,,so there are several venues where pilots
can train for 747s and large commercial airliners like an airbus.

but that's what the 'Hanjour can't fly a piper cub' silliness is about,
the gov't giving the public false trails to follow (to nowhere)
so as to cover up the FBIs failing in uncovering the plot, et al...
or rather letting the plot develop while they themselves allowed the
zealots free reign so a mountain of data and the many connections of the terrorist/militant network could be flushed out---from the funders of Atta, Hanjour and the other 6 pilots to the sponsers who would activate and assign the needed 'strong arms' for the 4 aircraft being hijacked and commandeered by the secret cabal of 8 pilots.



as for the 500MPH crash speed...
has anyone suggested that some 20-50 miles out the crafts descended
lower and cruised at 200 knots and only put-the-petal-to-the-metal in the last couple miles from the targets?? making impact @ +500

i glad that prison planet has been doing their investivagative research,
they're finally pulling out facts, items that leave the official versions
looking like grade school essays



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join