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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:37 AM
what a psych ops huh. i mean when contrasted with the "reality many american's live in, saturated by entertainment, everywhere you look wether it's tv (where corportate controlled media cheerleaders repeat and condition us until corporate marketing is seen as truth) , magazine's, radio's something of this nature (alternative theory's) is just to fantastic and scary (compared to what you believe) to seem true

but as you question things you begin to see it is defintiely a possibility

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:37 AM
what a psych ops huh. i mean when contrasted with the "reality many american's live in, saturated by entertainment, everywhere you look wether it's tv (where corportate controlled media cheerleaders repeat and condition us until corporate marketing is seen as truth) , magazine's, radio's something of this nature (alternative theory's) is just to fantastic and scary (compared to what you believe) to seem true

but as you question things you begin to see it is defintiely a possibility

and then when you compare to patterns in history....well...each must come to their own conclusion

[edit on 27-11-2007 by cpdaman]

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:49 AM

These "highjackers" were complete moronic tools used as a smoke screen for what really happened.

Think about it- 4 planes highjacked simultaneously?

How completely stupid, and how completely stupid of the public to have bought into such a sham.

And the plane that flew into the Pentagon? Oh, puleeze!

[edit on 27-11-2007 by dk3000]

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Jim_Kraken
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.

Er... actually my theory contests to official story in that there were no terrorists.

I believe that the case may be that the CIA or other shadowy outfit attempted to assassinate the selected members of 'al qaeda'* (or whatever you want to call the global terrorist conglomerate) and failed... or failed on purpose...

By failing, the survivors of the assassinations would not be too pleased, perhaps they simply aren't aware of the bigger issues that seem to fly right over their heads, or maybe they're just too busy enjoying their life of luxury fuelled by their evil ways, but whatever - by Failing, The surviving '9/11 terrorists' may have taken it upon themselves to do something about it, which may explain the recent terrorist activity in the middle-east.

Assuming it isn't just blackwater USA masquerading as natives, as i'm sure some of their employees will have likely done in the past.

*This is another part of my theory, to do with the problem of complexity - by aiming too high they left themselves open to insightful minds.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Throbber]

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:01 AM

Originally posted by deltaboy

A teenage pilot who crashed a small plane into the 28th floor of a bank building left a suicide note saying he acted alone and sympathized with Osama bin Laden, police said Sunday. (snip)

Not licensed to fly, yet he manage to fly into the building. I guess inexperienced pilots only crash into baseball fields.

I do not believe this is remotely the same thing.

No one is arguing that it is impossible to fly a plane into a building, because clearly it can and has been done. The argument is flying a sophisticated airliner (compared to a Cessna) with shaky training and questionable flight skills into a specific and chosen target with pinpoint accuracy.

The misguided teen simply crashed into a building...which could have been any building I'm assuming. He had about two years of training.

Do you think he specifically meant to target the 28th floor of the 42-story Bank of America office building, or just flew into a building that was in his path?

I'm going with the latter.

VICKIE CHACHERE: There was nothing to indicate that he had targeted this particular office building. There was nothing in the note that was found in his pocket when they were able to get to the wreckage that indicated he was aiming toward that building. And so they're not really sure why the Bank of America Building.

I doubt he even knew it was a Bank of America office building.
It seems he just wanted to crash and die.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:09 AM
Much of the debate here surrounds the capability of the alleged hijackers to fly the planes.

We've heard from John Lear about this, here's
what a "top gun" pilot has to say about it.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:20 AM
Well, after reading the last few posts, here's what I will say. The events of 9/11 are apparently open to many interpretations. However, IF it was an orchestrated 'PsychOps' event then Bush (shrub), Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, should be IMMEDIATELY arrested and put on trial. A Constitutional crisis of huge proportions, no doubt, but isn't this OUR country, not theirs?

Or, if it were actually Saudi terrorists who had 'assistance', then, again, lets purge the system and find the cancer in this administration, whether it be at the top or not.

Or, it could actually have been a co-ordinated plan (similar to the thwarted plan to simultaneously hijack 10 airliners over the Pacific Ocean and blow them up) that was over-looked by the Bush (shrub) administration, despite all of the Intel...either way, senior Adminstration officials should be taken down, do you not agree?

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:24 AM
...oops, 'taken down' could be misconstrued as a threat...should have written what I meant, which is 'removed' from any position of power and subjected to appropriate prosecution in a court of law...

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

A good point and one I agree with - they should be arrested at the very least for the Iraq debacle.

The only problem (and it's a big problem) is getting past the patriots act - just think, they can arrest you for being "anti-american" (at a pinch) if you only disagree with bush - does this tactic remind anyone else of a certain european country 70 years ago?

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:28 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

The intel that Bush received was very vague. Hell even I wouldn't figure out what the heck you suppose to do with the intel in your hands. Hijackers want to hijack passenger planes in the U.S. THE END.

What are you suppose to do with that? Shutdown the airlines forever?

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:32 AM
reply to post by budski

Actually, budski...good point. There is a thread here on ATS about how to tell if your country is becoming a totalitarian state (I didn't get the title exactly right). But, my point is that's a place to go to continue this conversation.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:36 AM
reply to post by deltaboy

Yes, deltaboy. True, we in the aviation community were drilled about the 'common strategy' but never were we briefed, nor did it occur to us, to expect a suicide hijacker with an agenda. Especially ones who were so willing to cut the pilots' throats at the outset...

Monday morning quarterbacking, now.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:40 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

I've posted a couple of threads about the patriots act and its (apparent) power to control - what I hadn't considered before, is the depth of government complicity that MAY be in the 9/11 "conspiracy" and how the government of the US could use the act against people it considers to be an "enemy" when in fact they are concerned citizens - a big difference from a terrorist.

Like I said, I only just watched loosechange and have only now started to dig into this.

I think I have some reading to do in the 9/11 forum - I'll just have to wade through some of the more outlandish stuff.

I haven't totally made up my mind yet, but something stinks about all of this.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Of course it never occured to you that suicide hijackers intent to crash into buildings. When was the last time it happened in pre-9/11? What was the usually common strategy dealing with hijackers in pre-9/11 world? What is the strategy now in post-9/11?

Bill Clinton uses cruise missiles to strike Bin Laden's camps, pissing Bin Laden off, what is the best thing to do in return? Since terrorists can't afford to buy cruise missiles along with platform to launch it, the best thing is use passenger planes and turn them into large guided cruise missiles. People always said that suicidal terrorists are even better than smart bombs.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:55 AM
reply to post by deltaboy

Yes, deltaboy. Again, in hindsight (especially after the tragic USS Cole incident) hijacked airplanes used as guided missiles should have been forethought. Maybe the concept was so foreign, we were lulled by the historic pattern of past hijacking scenarios and didn't think outside the box.

I will never discuss any of the old common strategy, nor, of course, what is currently in use. It is not to be disseminated in public.

Thanks to all who stay aware, informed and active in investigating the truth.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:58 AM
the planes were empty and remote controlled...... read it, all.


[edit on 27-11-2007 by VveaponS2K]

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:02 PM
Originally posted by weedwhacker

I will float a question: DID these Saudi 'pilots' ever purchase instruction 'time' on a B757 or B767 simulator?

Thanks for the post weedwhacker. If you believe the guest that Art Bell had on his show just before his final and thankful retirement. The guest related how Saddam Hussein during Gulf War 1 sent trucks to load up Kuwait's Boeing 757/767 simulator and truck it to Bagdad where it was shipped to Pakistan, reassembled and used to train the hijacker pilots.

I have a number of probelms with that scenario starting with "putting the simulator on trucks" for instance who was the technical expert who supervised the disassembly of these alleged simulators. They don't just come with a plug that you plug into a wall. They have rows and banks of computers not to mention 'visuals' necessary for Category 4.

I also have trouble with "driving to Bagdad" with trucks full of Boeing 757/767 simulator parts during the middle of a war.

I also have problems with assembling it in Pakistan, for instance, WHO assembled it? It takes a highly technical team to set those things up and keep them running.

Then it sits there in Pakistan and Kuwait never asks for it back?

No, I am not buying this story even though my good friend Art Bell bought it hook, line and sinker.

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.

I have problems believing that an experienced pilot could make this statement with a straight face. "A couple hours orientation?" Total, utter, complete, unequivical nonsense. Are you kidding weedwhacker?

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).

I believe that this whole exchange was being broadcast from the communication center of the E4-B used for Command & Control of 911.

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.

If you limit your argument to stick forces (the number of pounds it takes to bank the airplane) a qualified 'maybe'. But if you're talking about making a 180 degree turn in a Boeing 767 going 500 mph then my comment is "It is much harder (not stick forces, but difficulty with reference to rate of turn, angle of bank, altitude hold and airspeed) to turn a Boeing 767 than a Cessna 172".

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.

That airplane fuel test crash was being hand flown by NASA test pilot Fitzhugh Fulton in December of 1984, 23 years ago. I would assume by now that remote controlling aircraft as demonstrated by our UAV's operating world wide would be generations beyond that ill-fated demonstration.

One month before 9/11, German newspaper Der Spiegel reported that U.S. military-industrial complex giant Raytheon landed a 727 jet six times by remote control using GPS technology at a Hollomon AFB in New Mexico.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:06 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Well I don't need to know too much of what pilots usually do in case of hijackings, but based on what I've seen so far, its usually give in to the bad guys and hope they land and let special ops units or SWAT take care of them. Or end in peaceful resolution.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:18 PM
reply to post by johnlear's difficult to make oneself clear sometimes in a post. I only floated a hypothetical...a 600-hour guy who only needed to know how to disconnect the autopilot and autothrottles, and where to find the transponder (you'll admit that every primary instruction student has to learn what a transponder is and what it does?). I have heard of airlines that used to auction off a few hours in a sim to any General Aviation pilot who was willing to pay. (Of course, not now...). Point is, and you know this, wide-body jets fly like a dream. They handle well and the control wheel forces are hydraulically augmented and the ADC modulates the 'feel' based on KIAS and temp and all the other imputs being fed to the coumputer. Yes, I admit they may or may NOT have known how to trim, and the control forces can be large in the lateral axis if they don't trim the elevator. But, you've had many checkrides, you've done steep turns in the sim...a little back pressure, a little thrust to hold speed and altitude. BUT, that's what professionals do. IF they indeed commandeered those airplanes, they COULD have maneuvered, just not smoothly I'm supposing.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:34 PM
And, again, respect Capt Lear...

I am not posting to agree or deny the premise of this thread, just stating my opinion based on knowledge and experience. Please scroll up to my post on 27-11-2007 at 1220 EST.

To recap: When it (9/11) happened I was at home. Watched it unfold and thought 'the airline business will never be the same'. (sidebar: my home was only a few miles from the Pentagon...I felt the house shake, like a small tremor when the floors collapsed).

I was supposed to fly a trip on the 12th, was looking forward to Rio and Sao Paulo. (at least my company paid for the lost trip, they did for all crewmembers affected).

Anyway, scheduling called and we deadheaded to Sao Paulo (GRU) and operated the last leg of the original pairing. This was, I believe, on the 15th/16th.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in