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: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


LOL I´ve said that a thousand times... It wouldn´t be the easyest trick for airliner pilots to do that imagine a bunch of beginner pilots without commercial aircraft flying experience...Flying a cessna and practicing on flight simulator or even boing simulators will not ease this enough...

This and the way the towers collapsed, they came down so perfectly,so aligned to the base, its what made me suspect the governmental bull right from the beginning...


[edit on 27/11/07 by derfred33]




posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Originally posted by weedwhacker




BUT, that's what professionals do. IF they indeed commandeered those airplanes, they COULD have maneuvered, just not smoothly I'm supposing.



No. Not even maybe.

And to prove it here is my challenge. I will rent and pay for an hour in a Boeing 757 simulator. You will sit in the left seat. I will line you up on the World Trade Center at 500 mph, 20 miles out. All you have to do, with your 23,000 hours of flight time is to hit the World Trade Center south tower, anywhere around 800 feet up, dead center, with 26 feet of the building remaining intact on either side outboard of where the wingtip hits. You only get one try and it will be videotaped.

Deal?



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Hey!

I'd like to view that video just to see what happens.


Is anyone gonna take John up on it?



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Probably not THAT relevant, but didn't one of the aircraft strike more towards the corner of one of the buildings?

Sorry I can't remember which one, but as I say, I'm only just getting into this.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I do remember asking how they managed to miss either horizontal floor pad without an X marks the spot on the outside of the building. Also you better not add the exact weather conditions or any other associated parameters or that will make it too difficult. I still believe Johns opinion is correct. I also just read Top Guns opinion and I'd like to see the people on this forum try and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about either. Apparently He and John are not alone as far as other technically adept people who are also unconvinced by the official story. Thankyou.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 



Let's see if anyone will take your challenge. I highly doubt it. If anyone does though, please post the video.

Playing devil's advocate. Would you change your stance if they actually pulled it off?



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I have a friend who is a retired American Airlines pilot. He flew C-130's, DC-9's, MD-11's, 707's, 727's, 767's, 757's and A-300's. In his opinion the 757 and 767 were some of the easiest airplanes he ever flew.

As for flgiht instructors, there are good ones and bad ones. The amount of flying hours one has, has no bearing on whether or not one is a good pilot.
I have met several flight instructors that I would never get into an airplane with.

While I think flying a plane into a building at those speeds is difficult, it is not impossible. Japanese pilots with little to no flight instruction managed to ram their airplanes into our moving ships quite well in WW2.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by assassini]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by assassini
 


Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the japanese planes comparatively slow moving and a LOT more maneuverable?
The analogy is lost on me I'm afraid - but knowing very little about flying I am probably mistaken.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the japanese planes comparatively slow moving and a LOT more maneuverable?...


I think the point being made is that it would be difficult to manouver a large passenger plane at 500 MPH into a small target. The Japanese were flying small, light, very manouverable and relatively slow prop planes.
Imagine the difference between handling a small sports car and an 18 wheel truck...



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


The Japanese Zeros were fast, just about as fast a passenger planes. More manueverable no doubt. But then we saw the planes flying straight, not dive bombing against moving targets that shoot back.




posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by weedwhacker




BUT, that's what professionals do. IF they indeed commandeered those airplanes, they COULD have maneuvered, just not smoothly I'm supposing.



No. Not even maybe.

And to prove it here is my challenge. I will rent and pay for an hour in a Boeing 757 simulator. You will sit in the left seat. I will line you up on the World Trade Center at 500 mph, 20 miles out. All you have to do, with your 23,000 hours of flight time is to hit the World Trade Center south tower, anywhere around 800 feet up, dead center, with 26 feet of the building remaining intact on either side outboard of where the wingtip hits. You only get one try and it will be videotaped.

Deal?


Sorry to pull a full quote here...No, Capt Lear, I will not let you pay for the full hour. I would, however, split the cost with you. 20 miles out? Heck, I've been vectored to a 20-mile final plenty of times...yes, we had the localizer to follow, and a runway is hard to see from 20 miles...but I will submit that a 1000 ft tower on a clear day is slightly easier to see, especially if the Saudis had already dropped down to below 10,000 ft.

I've played in sims plenty of times over the years, when the motion is turned off, you can't hurt the thing, and 'flown' thru buildings...none as tall as the WTC towers. Let's see...downtown LA, and this in a B727 sim where the visuals aren't anywhere near as realistic as modern sims.

SO, who has a sim in LAS? America West, or, sorry, it's USair now has/had a facility in Phoenix. Is there a US/Cactus training center in Vegas now?

All I'm saying is, IF those bastards HAD taken over, then it is plausible they could have succeeded. Again, this is a hypothesis. Possible, plausable and probable have varying meanings.

BTW, isn't an hour in a sim about $3000 or so? Well, I just sold a house (the one in Arlington I mentioned before) and made a tidy profit. Let's see, I fly out to LAS, buy you the Corvosier and the cigars, and shell out $1500 to fly with you, maybe pick your brain afterwards? Hmmm...could be worth the trip.

(was thinking about the elevator trim issue...assuming the official story, the airplanes were taken over while at cruise. If the ELEV trim is never changed, perhaps the control wheel forces would not be excessive. I mean, there were no config changes, just 'point and steer'...just a thought).



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


It appears that the Zero was about 200mph slower than a modern passenger jet:


* Crew: 1
* Length: 9.06 m (29 ft 9 in)
* Wingspan: 12.0 m (39 ft 4 in)
* Height: 3.05 m (10 ft 0 in)
* Wing area: 22.44 m² (241.5 ft²)
* Empty weight: 1,680 kg (3,704 lb)
* Loaded weight: 2,410 kg (5,313 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: kg (lb)
* Powerplant: 1× Nakajima Sakae 12 radial engine, 709 kW (950 hp)
* * Aspect ratio: 6.4
Performance
# Maximum speed: 533 km/h (287 knots, 331 mph) at 4,550 m (14,930 ft)
# Range: 3,105 km (1,675 nm, 1,929 mi)
# Service ceiling: 10,000 m (33,000 ft)
# Rate of climb: 15.7 m/s (3,100 ft/min)
# Wing loading: 107.4 kg/m² (22.0 lb/ft²)
# Power/mass: 294 W/kg (0.18 hp/lb

source

This, plus the disparity in size, weight and agility says to me that the comparison between an untrained japanese pilot and a terrorist with no training in a passenger jet is not a valid analogy.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


'Not a valid analogy'?

Good Sir, if i might ask, what's your point?



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


The zero could fly at around 400 mph, so yes they were slower, but the targets they were after were moving at speeds of 15 to 30 mph and zig zagging to avoid being hit. The largest target being 850ft long and 105ft wide. 1350ft tall, 208ft wide buildings don't try to get out of the way and they don't shoot at you.

I did say it would be difficult, not impossible.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by assassini]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


budski's post at 14:14 EST....I think the video record shows the second airplane (UA 175) in a fairly steep bank (an airliner operated by a professional will normally not exceed 25 degrees of bank) jsut before impact. What this tells me is, the a**hole flying it had to maneuver in the last few seconds to make sure he hit. He over-corrected, maybe, since the airplane hit off-center.

Personal opinion...Atta and the others probably thought that the momentum of the 767s would topple the buildings, like a domino. I think AA11 hit higher up? SO, the second a**hole saw that result, and aimed lower....just my opinion....



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


If you're ever in the St. Louis or Kansas City area let me know. My brother has around 300 hours of flight time and I'm positive he would accept the challenge.

I will split the simulator rental time 50/50.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Reply to Throbber


Originally posted by assassini


While I think flying a plane into a building at those speeds is difficult, it is not impossible. Japanese pilots with little to no flight instruction managed to ram their airplanes into our moving ships quite well in WW2.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by assassini]


The above post is my point - the difference between the 2 aircraft is huge, and therefore the analogy is not valid.

The japanese plane had a max speed of 331mph - the 767 has a typical cruising speed at 35,000 feet of 530 mph.
It's just not possible to equate untrained pilots flying them.

[edit on 27/11/2007 by budski]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
This, plus the disparity in size, weight and agility says to me that the comparison between an untrained japanese pilot and a terrorist with no training in a passenger jet is not a valid analogy.


An untrained Japanese pilot can hit a moving American warship throwing tons of flak and lead in the sky that can distract you. And a untrained terrorist that can fly, even navigate where he needs to go, hits a tall stationary defenseless building. That don't sound difficult.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

The above post is my point - the difference between the 2 aircraft is huge, and therefore the analogy is not valid.


Whereas i claim it is valid because they both require piloting knowledge in order to fly the damn things.

If it were a comparision between a 747/757 and a typical Bulk Carrier, then i'd be able to see why you refused to acknowledge the validity.

Okay then chaps - this is where i butt in with my RC theory again; if it's so hard for an untrained pilot to acheive the desired result, how hard would it be to program a computer to fly into the WTC buildings?



[edit on 27-11-2007 by Throbber]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


That makes sense - it would seem to point to an inexperienced pilot at the very least, do you think?

About the zero's - 330mph vs 530 mph, before any other factors are looked at.

Also, I don't believe even the relatively small ww2 ships of the line and crriers could zigzag fast enough to make a difference.

There's also the fact that many of the kamikaze planes DID miss, either because they were shot down, or because the pilots couldn't hit the target.

Here is a list of ships sunk and how they were sunk - it supports what I said.




new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join