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: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Originally posted by COOL HAND




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?



Thanks for the post COOL HAND. The only airplane wreckage I have seen at or around the World Trade Center is an engine, several blocks away, from the WTC, a wheel and a piece of window paneling. Not much wreckage for half a million pounds of airplanes.

Incidentally the engine is a CFM-56 that neither Flight 11 or Flight 175 used. American Airlines used CF-6's and United Airlines used the Pratt and Whitney JT-9D-7R4D. CFM-56's are used on Boeing 737's and the old DC-8 used to use them but they had 4 because its such a little engine.

If you have anymore pictures of any wreckage around the World Trade Center please let me know.


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.


The above statement was not made by anyone with any experience flying airplanes. But your opinion is always welcome.


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?


COOL HAND you are in luck! I am going to rent a Boeing 767 simulator for one hour and have several pilots and non-pilots show me how to fly into the WTC, dead center, from 20 miles away at 500 mph.

I have chosen you to fly the profile because you are so sure it is so easy. I will notify you of the time and place and I will show you the basics, how to make it go up and down, how to make it go right and left. I will set the throttles at max power, 20 miles out and all you have to do is hit a 208 foot wide target at, 800 feet up and 500 mph.

And if you manage to even nick the building, I will eat my Tin Foil Hat, at high noon, in the middle of the intersection of Tropicana Blvd. and the Strip.

Thanks for the post.




posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Do you have any thoughts (or better yet, evidence) for the spectacular light and sound show that was put on?

I don't buy into mass hypnotism on that scale.

I DO have some experience with the equipment needed to create an illusion good enough to fool thousands of people (worked in theatre and it's pretty damn hard just to make it look OK for a couple of hundred people), and IMO it would be a long way from foolproof.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
The above statement was not made by anyone with any experience flying airplanes. But your opinion is always welcome.

How can you be sure of that? You don't know who I am, or what I do outside of what I have already posted here. For all you know I could also be a commercial pilot.


How come you lowered your standards for me? I just have to nick the building, when the original challenge was to hit a pinpoint location.

Can I assume that you have already researched the weather for that day and will be simluating that as part of this test?



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Are you asking how it would be possible to create a fake 9/11, despite the damage to the buildings?

I'd be more than happy to outline how it could be done - if john isn't alreay setting up a post for you of course.

Btw, despite what would appear as my own shortcomings, i rarely judge people, i merely judge their actions.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Throbber]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by adjay
 


Hmm...

OK.... adjay...

HERE WE GO.... ;o)

You can probably drive a car, and maybe even one with a standard transmit ion...

But think about the skill required in performing the following "stunt"...

COULD YOU DO IT...? FOR REAL MAN... THINK ABOUT IT...

"HIJACK" A SEMI (THAT WAS ALREADY ROLING OF COURSE) AND THAN MAYBE BEING ABLE TO STEER THROUGHT (for example) THE BACK STREETS OF BOSTON, WHICH YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO FOR ABOUT A HALF AN HOUR WITH OUT WRECKING, BUT (WHICH IN YOUR OPINION OF "SMART HIJACKERS") WOULD CERTAINLY GIVE YOU THE EXPERIENCE TO THAN, SMOOTH AS A WHISTLE, BACK THE SEMI BETWEEN TWO OTHER SEMI's INTO A LOADING DOCK...?????

I don't know... Agreeing to the possibility of other mechanisms for the actual flying of the plane hardly makes up for your belief in the possibility that these complete neophytes could perform the maneuvers these planes had made....

I feel that this type of, how to say, behavior, that is to say, ones ability to deny or the lack of ability to be able to personalize these events and the stories, is really a huge battle..

My reason for saying this is that most of these very "heavy" topics have such profound impacts on our lives that I really believe most people are just simply lacking, in a true sense, the "ability" or the "personal tools" to integrate the deep deception of and mockery, by the leaders of this country, into their psyches...

To be left with these feelings/experiences by the supposed "Father" of our country I think simply completely triggers all the fears people have of the same behavior of, for example, their own fathers... And we, humans, WILL MAKE MANY EXCUSES FOR (DENIAL OF) OUR FATHERS' (OR MOTHERS', FOR THAT MATTER) TERRIBLE BEHAVIOR IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OUR PSYCOLOGICAL BALANCE....

adjay's "mental agility" in running around (the obvious, for some people) profound expertise of Mr. Lear and other evidence is only proof of what is happening in "mainstream" America (though rapidly changing, thank God ;o)).
People's worlds become hard pressed without a leader, role model, hero etc. etc.... Its not their fault!!! In my opinion, It is just our society as it is today..
For example, Europeans are far ahead of us in understanding the "reality" of 9/11, Afganastan, Irag, Oil/Dollars etc. etc. Maybe they are not less "smart" or "courageous" than us but simply,,,, it is not THEIR FATHER... It is always eaier to see anothers "faults" than ones own.??!!
And believe me I am one of these "suckers" as well... And to tell you the truth I think it is, atleast partly, a healthy sign that one actually believes what somebody like the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES says to them as their leader of state and arms...

Shame on these people abusing their positions politically and socially..

I think WE as people OWE it to our selves and the coming generations of OUR OWN children to CLEAN this mess up AS SOON AS POSSIBLE by holding these men and woman responsible and punishing in courts of law for the entire world to see... There is respect in acknowledging ones own as wrong and even evil... The world already understands pretty well what has happened and I am one whom believes they to will forgive us if we are strong and take our responsibility in persecuting these global criminals for what they have, are and plan on doing...

May the peace within all of us give us the courage to follow our hearts/minds and souls...

"Start by doing what's necessary, than do what's possible, and suddenly you are doing the impossible."
- Saint Francis of Assisi



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

Originally posted by Throbber
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.





Mineta mentions there was an order to shoot down any possible hijacked planes, and also that fighter planes are alerted.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Oh YA YA... ITS WAY EASY TO FLY THESE SILLY 747 757 around..

Come on anybody can do it,, my mom, grandmom... Hey even the stuardess could have done it...

Ya just aim... and.... shoot before long you've plucked the gander!!

So.... Ummmm hey... can I fly the simulator tooooo.... ;o)

My big mouth fails me once again!!! ;o(

Mr. Lear.... Is there any way you can video the attempts???? I have to see this...!

JTG



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


Thanks for taking the time out to find that vid, delta.

Still, it shows that even officially there was some.. internal deliberation as to whether or not these planes were infact going to be shot down.

I wonder what became of the conversation between the 'young man' and the vice pres.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
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?


I can't speak for weedwhacker but I've discussed this with all of my flight instructors at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (finest flight school in the country imo). Their unanimous opinion - Absolutely.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Just another quick point about Kamikaze pilots...


It is improbable that the Tenzan Corps achieved such a high success rate when only about 11% of the planes who participated in the operation sunk or damaged American ships.


Source

11% success rate...Think about that for a minute...

Also not all Kamikaze planes were Zero's, they ran out of them and started using slower training planes which would be even easier to hit a target with.

So what was the 9-11 pilots success rate again? Oh yeah 100% three times.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Originally posted by budski



Do you have any thoughts (or better yet, evidence) for the spectacular light and sound show that was put on?



The Boeing 767's were holographs. Current but secret holograph techonology can dispaly aircraft that look real, sound real, can give of heat but nothing is there.

I had dinner a few nights ago with a former Lockheed scientist who described the technology in detail. And no, I can't pass it on.




I don't buy into mass hypnotism on that scale.


No, no mass hypnosis. It was mass PsyOps.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Throbber
 


Well it would be confusing to anybody as to what was going on. Think the President knew there were more hijackings after he was informed about the second plane crash? Could he just say, alright order the shoot down of all aircraft considered hostile. Well there was the perception that about a dozen aircraft were hijacked when in fact only 4. The American people would be pissed off if we shot down more than what it should be.

What was the FAA rules with hijacking? Automatic shoot down? Jets to intercept and turn away the planes from restricted airspace? Jets shoot down planes immediately without identification?



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
So what was the 9-11 pilots success rate again? Oh yeah 100% three times.


75%, remember flight 93. Didn't reach its target. HOLY CRAP
THEY FAILED!!!



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Interesting stuff John - here was me thinking it would simply be agents placed in the crowd and the relevant camera-men, providing us with 'fake real-time footage'.

It wouldn't be so hard to recreate the 9/11 attack using computer-generated imagery, what with our apparent 'next to real life' graphical technology used in computer games these days.

However your idea does seem rather a lot simpler.




Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by Throbber
 


What was the FAA rules with hijacking? Automatic shoot down? Jets to intercept and turn away the planes from restricted airspace? Jets shoot down planes immediately without identification?


That appears to be the truth of the reality, but whether or not those rules were followed specifically is known only by the young gentleman mentioned in that vid you brought to my attention.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Good stuff, but does an aircraft hologram really cover all the bases?

I think the key phrase from the "brief description" part of the document posted is "provide a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary"
The TV crews, thousands of eyewitnesses including firemen and police, who are trained observers represent a sophisticated adversary rather than an unsophisticated one.

The earth shaking which felt like a seismic event?

The sound of the explosions?

The shock wave from the initial hits?

IMO a psyop doesn't begin to cover all the multitude of physical experiences of thousands of people.

Just so I'm clear on this, it's your contention that holographic planes were used, then the buildings were brought down with explosives?
And that this would explain why there was little in the way of aircraft debris?

Also, what about the identification of the passengers using DNA?



[edit on 27/11/2007 by budski]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Just another quick point about Kamikaze pilots...


It is improbable that the Tenzan Corps achieved such a high success rate when only about 11% of the planes who participated in the operation sunk or damaged American ships.


Source

11% success rate...Think about that for a minute...

Also not all Kamikaze planes were Zero's, they ran out of them and started using slower training planes which would be even easier to hit a target with.

So what was the 9-11 pilots success rate again? Oh yeah 100% three times.


ofcourse those kamikaze pilots were also being shot at by several hundred 25 mm anti-aircraft FLAK cannons by multiple ships, with fighters being scrambled to intercept incoming planes.

How many anti-aircraft guns were on the world trade center?

oh right. none.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HolyHell422
reply to post by adjay

...

I don't know... Agreeing to the possibility of other mechanisms for the actual flying of the plane hardly makes up for your belief in the possibility that these complete neophytes could perform the maneuvers these planes had made....


I think you misread my stance, or, you are misreadable. Since when did I believe "complete neophytes" could perform those maneouvres?



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Anok,

comparison of 9/11 hijackers and their efficiency with kamikazes is not valid, imho. The hijackers were not flying in the conditions of dense anti-aircraft fire (which will probably cause at least some damage to the plane and injury to the pilot, thus minimizing the chances of a successful hit). In the statistics quoted, I'm not even sure how this is taken into account (or even the percentage shot down during approach).

Also: hitting a ship means flying at low altitude. I can imagine how hard this is given the AA fire! We all seen these splashes/crashes in documentaries. If the Japanese pilots were presented with a tower the size of the WTC as their target, their success rate could have been way, way different.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by adjay
 


adjay.... Ya sorry....


I was refering to throbber...

My sincerest apologies....



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
comparison of 9/11 hijackers and their efficiency with kamikazes is not valid, imho.


Comparing the two (efficiency or not) is like comparing apples with oranges. Different training, different engines, different controls, hugely different size and handling, different era, different training, so different that I don't even know why they are brought into a topic about the guy who trained the hijackers saying they could have never pulled this off.



new topics




 
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join