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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 06:04 PM
reply to post by HolyHell422

To what extent, may i ask?

I see nothing in your previous two posts that was aimed towards me.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Throbber]

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:11 PM
I just want to say that I never really read much about 911 conspiracies.

But, after watching the few programs on how it went down according to the Government and now reading this thread. I think I'm gonna have to put my bet on it NOT going down like the government says it did.

Guess I should go watch Loose change huh? Is 'loose change' a movie or documentary about a 911 conspiracy?

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:18 PM
reply to post by Alien Abduct

Hey, if something in this thread has made you want to seek the truth, in whatever shape or form - then no one is going to stop you.

Just try to resist the urge to find something and say "This is it! This is what happened!" - these are theories not fact.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:20 PM
reply to post by Alien Abduct

My personal recommendation is "9/11 Mysteries" over "Loose Change", the Loose Change people argue, despite airline wreckage to the contrary, that a missile hit the Pentagon and that Flight 93 actually landed safely. I think the Loose Change guys are deliberately trying to discredit the more serious researchers thru association with them.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:56 PM
Originally posted by budski

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.

No witness saw the airplane/hologram for more than a few seconds.

The earth shaking which felt like a seismic event?

You mean during the collapse? Because the alleged film shot from the ground looking up shows not the slightest movement of the building after being hit by a 350,000 pound airplane traveling at 500 mph.

The sound of the explosions?

You mean the planes hitting the towers? That was preplaced controlled demolition placed to resemble the outline of an airplane.

The shock wave from the initial hits?

Source please.

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

I disagree.

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?

Holographs were used to simulate the Boeing 767's. Then preplaced demolition was used to simulate the crash outline of the airplane into the building. Then DEW was used to disintegrate the the buildings along with controlled demolition to cut the steel girders into 30 foot sections to make them fit on Rudy's trucks.

Later in the week Zorgon will be posting more on the craft we think was armed with the DEW that was used on the WTC.

The holograph projector either failed or for some reason couldn't be used to simulate Flight 93 crashing into building 7. The perps had to simulate Flight 93 crashing at Shanksville and then bit the bullet, hoped for the best, and control demo'd Building #7 without a valid reason or excuse. You talk about a gigantic screwup but heck, you can't beat success. Everybody bought it.

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

No passenger died in any crash during 911. Because there were no crashes. Most of them are probably still alive like all the government employees. I betcha Chic Burlingame (Captain, Flight 77) is reading this post, aren't you Chic? A few civies probably had to be exterminated for the good of all concerned. I mean if your going to murder 3000 at the WTC whats a couple more?

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:09 PM

Originally posted by deltaboy
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?

Also, just remember how verylax airline security was before 911. Remember? They only let you on board with bombs big enough to fill a carry-on piece of luggage. Bigger bombs had to be okayed by TSA. Funny? Not now. They even let people smoke onboard and in the bathrooms too. It was a different time, a different awareness. But not for El-Al, who were always on guard and have a decent record to this day relative to hijackings, etc.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:25 PM
Lax? We were not lax thank you very much. We were paid minimum wage, using outdated equipment, following different rules for different airlines at times and doing the best we could do. At the time of the hijackings most of the weapons that were taken on board were allowed to go on, such as knives and box cutters, and mace was one of the hardest things to find in a bag, especially a cluttered bag. There is no evidence that there were actual explosives onboard those planes.

Security was the scapegoat of 9/11. We weren't great no, but try looking at the behind the scenes aspect of US airport security first before you say how lax we were at the time. The airlines were responsible for security at the time, and their first concern was their profits. If we missed tests, the airline was fined $10,000 and turned around and fines the company $10,000, and the company either suspends or fires the screener that missed it.

At the time I was responsible for repairing x-rays and explosive trace detectors at our airport. We had no maintenance contract for the ETDs, which cost $3,000 per machine and would have given us access to any parts we needed when we needed them. Instead, because the airlines wouldn't pay for them, we would have to have machines sitting out of service for a week or 10 days at a time until the company could get the money for parts (we were in Chapter 11 most of the last year to year and a half before the TSA), and we could get them shipped to us. And god help us if a unit had to go back to the factory for service. It would be months before we saw it again. We actually had them threatening to take one of our machines because the airlines spent so much time debating who was paying for the service.

The FAA rules that we were given to follow were something of a joke. Knives 4" or less were allowed on the plane, along with things like baseball bats, box cutters, and other weapons and tools.

The security now is even worse than it was pre-9/11. They have taken the best machine in service we had, and they don't allow them to use most of the software that's on it. They don't even allow them to use both screens that are on the unit.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:44 PM
I really believe that there was no conspiracy. I mean some of these theories are just crazy. I always tend to look at both sides and try to keep an open mind but I feel most people who feel like 911 was a conspiracy have there minds made up and no matter what evidence is brought to their attention they will refuse to change their opinion. Take this thread for example... I just googled hijackers could fly a 757 and found this website

also from the 911 commision report:
It should be noted that the Flight Management Computer could be programmed in such a
manner that it would navigate the aircraft automatically to a location of the hijackers’
choosing, not merely a commercial airport, at a speed and altitude they desired, provided
the hijackers possessed the precise positioning data necessary. By using sequenced
waypoints dialed into the computer, the hijackers could also approach the target from the
direction they wanted.
Financial records indicate that one of the hijackers had purchased a global positioning
system perhaps for the purpose of acquiring precise positioning data on al Qaeda’s 9/11
targets. They had also purchased a Boeing flight deck video and flight simulator
software program. Flight manuals were also found among their belongings

here is the link:

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:30 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Please excuse me... I didn't mean to gore "your" bull. I was only speaking from my experience as a passenger. It was a different awareness pior to 911 for all concerned. I've always enjoyed being an airline passenger and (despite the new hassles and risks) still do. I'M often amazed to think that my ass is going 500mph through the sky!

It seems as though the whole chain of security assurance was broken despite the valiant efforts of caring personnel.

Back on track of this thread, IMHO, with the information I read here, and with no piloting experience, the myth of hijackers hitting the WTC towers is busted. The official 911 story is bogus. We will probably never learn the truth about JFK's assasination, but with the new technology and many tuth-seeking souls, maybe some of the truth of 911 will emerge. It's a huge conspiracy.... THANKS FOR THIS FORUM, ATS!

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:37 PM
Ill be real Honest with all of you im not a real life pilot,BUT i HAVE Over 12000Hours in Flight Simulator PC in A310-80,Boeing 737-300,800.and if i got to be infront of a real FlightDeck with my navigational and operations knoledge of each bird,i can fly it,there still some thing that are not clear to me,one of them is the pasaport found intact and some other stuff,But i asure you that if im flying in either one of those birds and an emergency araise i will fly and attemp to land the bird.

Now,MR Lear:
i respect your knoledge and your carrer as investigator,but HOLOGRAMS,i was on the west exit of the A train in Canal Street and SIR i saw the second craft and felt like a earhquake when it hit .now!7 was demolish that is true i saw it going down,and i have seen demolitions before,(USN 83-89).Keep the Good work sir,but i iknow the technology is there but not at that scale.WE WILL NEVER KNOW WHY?

[edit on 27-11-2007 by elievano]

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:58 PM
I have some questions about the Pentagon impact, perhaps you folks can answer.

This terrorist began a rapid spiral decent towards his target and flew into the pentagon at full power and at treetop level.

1) Correct me if I am wrong (I don’t know) : Is there some sort of governor built into the flight control system that prevents abrupt control inputs above the maneuvering speed in this aircraft?

2) Even with a small wing and relatively slow speed, if you fly the a/c with too much power on landing ( or as in the soft field takeoff, in the ground effect ) you can point the nose downward towards the runway and the altitude is not lost. The plane will just float all the way down the runway; and not contact the ground (but maybe that famous 50ft obstacle at the end.

In fact, the greater the speed, the larger the wing and the closer to the ground you are.. the MORE pronounced this effect will be. So how can a large winged commercial jet, at full power and at tree top level strike a low ground target so easily from that attitude? You would have to hold the yolk in major forward position just to keep from climbing, and if so that must have been a sight to behold!

Additionally, would it not be much easier to just fly a normal approach and dump the plane on to the building at minimum steady flight speed?

If I had to be the one to execute this type of attack, and I believed strongly enough to actually do it, I would plan to maximize my chances for success, not try to emulate a cruse missile with a passenger jet.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:15 PM
anybody checked out this Rudi Dekkers guy in the video? He seems to have a very interesting background. Drug running, sexual harrasment charges, CIA ties, evictions, going out to bars with the hijackers, friends of the Clinton people, friends with the Bush people, helicopter crashes, and the list goes on and on.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by assassini]

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:17 PM

Originally posted by assassini
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?

Sorry assasini, you are correct, it is budski's thread. Thought it might be in John Lear's forum, though...oh, guess not. Well, as an ATS member in good standing I believe Capt Lear has every right to chime in with his opinions. After all, the original budski idea was about whether or not a rather inexperienced pilot could hit a building. Perhaps a good way to test the hypothesis is to find a 500-hour Private Pilot and put him/her in a simulator...I doubt you'd have any trouble finding volunteers (unless they had to pay for it!!).

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:17 PM

Originally posted by johnlear
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

Hmm. Thanks for confirming what I thought an auto-pilot would do.

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.

Umm, only if you have the little inflatable man at the controls...That is what your post meant, isn't it?

Japanese teenagers with less stick time were able to hit smaller targets that that, targets which were shooting back.

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

Highly unlikely, maybe. Impossible, no. Very little is actually impossible. Many things are "impossible" until they are done the first time. It was imossible to run a four-minute mile, until Roger Bannister did it.

Originally posted by adjay
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.

I'm sure he does. Especially when it comes to, how many of the hijackers was it?

According to the owner of a flight school at which 2 of the 4 accused 9/11 hijack pilots trained on simple aircraft with questionable ... all » competence, neither he nor the 9/11 hijackers implicated in the attacks, could pilot the 757 and 767 aircraft that they are alleged to have flown into targets on September 11, 2001.

So, because he owned the school at which half of those pinpointed as the hijack pilots trained on Cessnas, he is competent to testify as the skill of all of the hijack pilots on multi-engine jets. Even although he was not a direct witness to the training of half of the alleged pilots.

In a court of law that testimony would be stricken from the record.

Small cockpit space, lots of blood = hard to get another person in the pilots seat.

Why? It's not like Middle Eastern terrorists have ever been particularly squeamish. And if you're going to die anyway, who cares if you're sitting in someone else's blood. AND it's much easier to move a dead body than a live one that doesn't want to move. In any case, it's yet to be proven the pilots had to be killed in order to move them.

Originally posted by johnlear
There is no way, as some have said on this thread, that once in the air they could have hit the building. There is no way, none, zero that that could happen. Much less twice.

Its a fantasy. Its a hoax. Its a PsyOp. No arab hijackers could have possibly flown those airplanes into the World Trade Center towers, towers that are 208 feet wide at 500 mph.

You know, John, the statement "because I said so" doesn't validate an argument unless I'm ten years old, you're my dad and you want to change the channel.

And this bit is so highly suspect that I'm assuming you typed it in haste and might now want to modify it, just a little...

No arab hijackers could have possibly flown those airplanes into the World Trade Center towers, towers that are 208 feet wide at 500 mph.

But as for your numbers, 208, 500 etc, if a pilot can hit a runway while throttling down, adjusting flaps, elevators and aeilerons etc, watching for wind schear and reading lights on the ground, if a fully-trained pilot can do all of that

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

then why can't a less-fully trained pilot, who dispensed with those lessons, but who concentrated on handling the plane at speed and altitude, hit a target when he has no lights, throttles or flaps to distract him, only the elevators and aeilerons?

Plus, there's one other, minor, semantic quibble I have...

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.

Who said anything about "dead centre"? The footage from the day didn't look "dead centre" to me. Plus, not being a structural engineer, I'd have wanted to aim for lower down if my direct aim was to bring the structure down.

Which, according to Bin laden himself (wait for this to be shredded), was not the aim, but an Allah-given bonus...

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 12:04 AM

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.



Will you also pay for accomodation and travell costs? If so, then I'll be glad to take up your challenge. Where do I sign up?

[edit on 28/11/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 12:27 AM
reply to post by budski

Budski, published maximum speeds for aircraft have little to do with what they're actually capable of doing. At sea level the 767 has the barber pole at about 350 knots, indicated. However if you push throttles forward and drop nose you could easily go faster.

There's been other instances of this happening other than 9/11.

And turn rate has little to do with weights.

Incidentally the engine is a CFM-56 that neither Flight 11 or Flight 175 used.

Link me.

In fact, the greater the speed, the larger the wing and the closer to the ground you are.. the MORE pronounced this effect will be. So how can a large winged commercial jet, at full power and at tree top level strike a low ground target so easily from that attitude? You would have to hold the yolk in major forward position just to keep from climbing, and if so that must have been a sight to behold!

You're greatly overestimating ground effect. If you lower the nose after you've flared, then it's impossible for you not to gain decent rate, and when you're flying at over 400 knots with a decent rate of over a thousand feet per minute, there is no way ground effect is going to make a plane dramatically change direction and climb.

No way. Ask at pprune.

[edit on 28/11/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 12:27 AM
reply to post by ivymike

ivymike, I see you are a pilot and guessing you own the that a Warrior? Or an Arrow? I never could remember Piper's designations. Are you also a rotor-wing pilot too?

Regarding your question about the Pentagon impact...(I wish not to step on Capt Lear's toes here...he asserts that his friend 'Chic' Burlingame, the AA77 Captain, is still alive. I went to the funeral for the First Officer of AA77 as it was conducted here in DC. While I was not an AA pilot, I wore MY uniform in respect, and there were MANY AA pilots and Flight Attendants and of course other friends and family at the service).

But back to your question...a 757 at high speed has far more kinetic energy than one in the landing configuration. Simple physics. As to ground effect, negligible in this instance. Remember, the airplane was in the cruise config, no slats, no flaps. When you mentioned the control forces on the 'yolk' (I think you meant 'yoke'), or let's just call it the control wheel, I'm assuming the a**holes knew how to operate the elevator trim. The trim switches (we call them 'pickle' switches) are built into the control wheel. So is the autopilot disconnect button and the PTT switch (although the jerks never needed to talk to ATC).

Anyway, the trim (actually, ELEV trim is a misnomer, the entire horizontal stabilizer moves to provide the trim, but the effect is the same as on your Piper) setting from cruise would not have to be changed much.

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 12:34 AM
reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter

Right...rate of turn varies by angle of bank and speed.

These Saudis would have paid no attention to the barber pole...even with the overspeed warning blaring they were probably praying to Allah loud enough to drown it out...

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 01:20 AM
John, as always it is thought provoking to read your opinions, even for someone like me who is likely considered a "skeptic" around here (at best, if one was bored they could probably find how many times ive been called a disinfo agent but no one can explain where my back pay is lol)

but, if you'd be so kind as to humor one of us "aeronautically UN-informed" for a moment...

Originally posted by johnlear
Its a fantasy. Its a hoax. Its a PsyOp. No arab hijackers could have possibly flown those airplanes into the World Trade Center towers, towers that are 208 feet wide at 500 mph.

becuase i dont know and im too lazy to wide is a typical runway that handles heavies? none of the airports will let me go out with my tape measure
now, being that while i may be uninformed im not a complete idiot (i do plan to find those missing parts someday) i do understand that lining up for landing approach probably is done way out from the runway and not done at 500mph, but once youre lined up, is the speed that much of a factor?

But your posts are appreciated even if they irritate the aeronautically informed.

ya know, i get the same blood vessel on my forehead throbbing anytime i get into a serious discussion with people who's knowledge of explosives seems to come from here

thanks in advance john

PS, should you happen to have some free time and would like to contribute to this thread i would appreciate it.


posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 01:30 AM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Perhaps a good way to test the hypothesis is to find a 500-hour Private Pilot and put him/her in a simulator...I doubt you'd have any trouble finding volunteers (unless they had to pay for it!!).

actually what might be a more compelling experiment is find some avg joe who's got no more flight experience than MS flight simulator, dump them in a real simulator and give them 2 hrs of actual training, a few hours to "play" around THEN have them try to recreate the event.

least the way my mind works that would be interesting.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in