Flight School Head Admits Neither He Nor 9/11 Hijackers Could Fly 9/11 Planes

Originally posted by Throbber

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?

It wouldn't be difficult at all Throbber. We have the techonology and the hardware.

The only problem is NO PLANES CRASHED INTO THE WTC ON 911. There were no planes that crashed into the WTC on 911. Who in the heck is going to risk a operation like that? Its easier to place some bombs that look like an airliner hit the building and then disintegrate it with a DEW weapon from orbit.

Thanks for the post.

reply to post by Throbber


Are you really comparing a zero with a 767?

read the specs on the zero posted, then read the 767 specs here and the 757 specs here

are you really telling me there is a similarity with the zero

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

source

sorry, I can't even see what you are getting at - there is no similarity, except they both fly - so why not compare to the shuttle if you want to go that far?

Heres flight 11 phone call if people think of planes as holograms or remote controlled.

Attendant mentions the pilot flying erratic.

I seem to remember loosechange implying about RC aircraft - all I'll say is that I'm keeping my options open on that particular theory.

Not entirely sure how valid the no planes thing is bearing in mind the number of witnesses - basically, it sounds like a crock, but that's just my opinion.

reply to post by budski


I'm sorry, are you asking me to compare something designed for terrestrial movement to something designed to travel into outer space?

I don't see what your problem is - i'm comparing the vehicles as they are, not their specifics.

It wouldn't be so hard to make the comparision - instead of the WTC, in this hypothetical scenario the Zero would fly into something much smaller, like an electricity pylon or the struts of a bridge.

My point is that claiming that his comparision isn't valid is pointless.

EDIT: Well, apparently pointless to my innocent and guile-less mindset.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Throbber]

reply to post by Throbber


And what I'm saying is, is that there is no comparison - the analogy is not valid IMO, and even less so when you take away the fact that one was much more agile, 200mph slower and was made for dogfighting - you simply can't compare the 2.

But you go right ahead and think whatever you like, no skin off my nose.

reply to post by budski


I have nothing wrong with your opinion, i just happen to think that your claim of his opinion being invalid was a knee-jerk reaction to someone contradicting you.

You refuse to acknowledge that he has a point.

EDIT: What? No reply?

You're lucky that you're among relatively kind-natured people, Budski - many people in open society would have been offended many times over by now.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Throbber]

Folks, we are missing Capt Lear's point, that no airplanes were involved in the WTC attacks. Talking about WWII Zeros and USN carriers isn't relevant.

Not sure if this is the tread, but here goes...DID airplanes actually hit the WTC, or was it a PsychOps? Back to my hypothesis, that is, IF airplanes had been commandeered, then it is possible...possible...to accomplish the attacks witnessed. Did something else happen? Let's listen to John Lear, and judge for ourselves. We (well, I) wojld like this matter settled once and for all!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


weedwhacker, in your opinion as a pilot, is it possible to hijack a plane and crash into the Twin Towers? Can a pilot with only a few hundred hours of experience fly a 767 into a stationary object?

Originally posted by johnlear
The only problem is NO PLANES CRASHED INTO THE WTC ON 911. There were no planes that crashed into the WTC on 911. Who in the heck is going to risk a operation like that? Its easier to place some bombs that look like an airliner hit the building and then disintegrate it with a DEW weapon from orbit.

Okay, then how do you explain the airplane wreckage that was found at the scene? Did they just truck the wreckage in beforehand and wait for the right moment to point it out to the rescue folks?

It is entirely possible to fly the planes into the buildings with little instruction. All you have to do is point your plane at one of the tallest buildings in the world, and hold the nose pointing at it till impact. It would not be difficult for someone to recognize the building and then point a plane at it until it hit, just like at the pentagon.


Why is this such a difficult concept for people to figure out? These targets were huge, easily visible from miles away. With that much run in time, in fairly calm weather, how could they not hit them?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Well, I suppose anything is possible regarding this topic and it may help with some of the grey area's.

I remain unconvinced though - it seems to me that relying on split second timing of holograms and explosions would be more complex and make the operation (if there was one) more likely to fail - not to mention the debris and the eyewitnesses and the need for someone to set off siesmic charges plus you'd need a GREAT sound guy and an out of this world PA system.

If there's evidence rather than speculation, then I'll willingly look at it with an open mind - but if it's just opinion? well then, I might as well read the bros grimm



[edit on 27/11/2007 by budski]

reply to post by deltaboy


Your post reminded me of another thing - to do with the tactical response to the flights.

I heard something about there being a Air Force training operation going on in canada or something, but that's not what i'm focusing on here.

The fact o' the matter is that most people would not even think about hijacking any planes because of the truth that is the response time of any 1st world country's air force.

This has an interesting side note to it, one that doesn't deal with the Establishment's perceived role in the events - if the hijackers were indeed onboard when the planes crashed (i can see how the evidence could be faked about them crashing into the towers, btw), then it would mean that someone tipped them off that the american military would be unable to respond to their flight path.

So then, in either the official story or any other, someone high up in the american echelons of power are playing with a second deck.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I didn't know this was Mr. Lear's thread. I thought budski started it and it was in reference to the instructor pilots and thier assesment of the hijackers piloting skills, not whether or not bombs, cruise missles and or holograms and remote control planes were used instead of airplanes on 9-11.

Another hijacking right here on ATS. Coincidence?

Originally posted by Throbber
reply to post by budski

 

I have nothing wrong with your opinion, i just happen to think that your claim of his opinion being invalid was a knee-jerk reaction to someone contradicting you.

You refuse to acknowledge that he has a point.

EDIT: What? No reply?

You're lucky that you're among relatively kind-natured people, Budski - many people in open society would have been offended many times over by now.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Throbber]

Lucky?
this is a discussion forum, where differing opinions are what makes it flourish.

I don't refuse to acknowledge anything - I simply have a different opinion, and mine is as valid as anyone else's - and I'm perfectly entitled to oppose a point of view or an opinion - that's the purpose of the site.

reply to post by budski


i've never flown a plane but common lets not kid ourselves about who could or could not fly any kind of plane once its already airborn thanks to someone else----------the computer whizz kids-----------children today could probably tell commercial airline pilots a thing or two they didnt know-----------------------------and if i was stuck on a plane where for some strange reason the pilots all died and the stewardess asked for a volunteer to try fly--------i'd try for all i was worth to learn real quick even if the landing ended up looking like airplane #1---------sooner try than die ----doing nothing.

reply to post by assassini


Whilst I respect what you are saying, I do think that any discussion of the events of 9/11 are appropriate - particularly as I'm new to the subject.
This also raises another point - if there weren't any planes, the "pilots" wouldn't need the expertise, would they?



[edit on 27/11/2007 by budski]

Originally posted by budski

I don't refuse to acknowledge anything - I simply have a different opinion, and mine is as valid as anyone else's - and I'm perfectly entitled to oppose a point of view or an opinion - that's the purpose of the site.

Valid enough to dismiss someone else's opinion as invalid?

reply to post by Throbber


I really don't understand why you are persisting with this, but it seems you are determined to butt into something that didn't involve you.

OK

Originally posted by Throbber

Your post reminded me of another thing - to do with the tactical response to the flights.

The fact o' the matter is that most people would not even think about hijacking any planes because of the truth that is the response time of any 1st world country's air force.

I believe the terrorists knew that they may not have all the time in the world to crash their planes. Hence why they did it in one day in a span of an hour.

reply to post by budski


I thought this was a discussion forum, am i not allowed to discuss the way that users interact with one another?

Granted, maybe you don't want me to discuss it directly with you, so if you'd like me to stop just say the word.


EDIT:

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Throbber

Your post reminded me of another thing - to do with the tactical response to the flights.

The fact o' the matter is that most people would not even think about hijacking any planes because of the truth that is the response time of any 1st world country's air force.

I believe the terrorists knew that they may not have all the time in the world to crash their planes. Hence why they did it in one day in a span of an hour.

And yet there has been no official statement as to the Government's attempts to stop the planes, at least to my knowledge.

Do you have an example of such a statement?


My point here, in case you're wondering, is that no attempt to stop the planes was made even due to the proximity to the WTC and it's distance from it's designated flight path.

You'd think they'd launch some sort of missile from an Aegis carrier stationed off-shore or that there would be some way to react, at the very least.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Throbber]