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: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


Damocles, a runway at a major airport is 150 feet wide.

Lining up on a runway on final approach is not difficult to do visually. Of course, usually we have some sort of electronic guidance in the cockpit to refer to. But the question here is, can an amateur aim at and succesfully hit a target while blowing thru the air at ridiculous speed, as opposed to a normal approach speed of 210 - 150 knots. (210K being a common requested speed, for ATC purposes, when being vectored in the terminal area. Speed adjustments are used by ATC to 'space' the airplanes as they are lined up. Common to be told to hold 180K to the 'outer marker', that's typically five miles from touchdown. Typical landing speed will be around 130-138K).




posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


thanks for the direct answers WW. (seems a rarity these days lol)

so, THEORETICALLY, since we dont have the black boxes and they were off the radar (or am i totally wrong on those points? im willing to concede i may be. pain meds not so good for memory some days) its theoretically possible that they were NOT going 500mph until they were "lined up" so to speak yeah? providing that there were in fact airplanes (in deference to JL and WITW
)



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


Hello Damocles

Yes, if there were, in fact airplanes, and it wasn't an elaborate hoax then the question about the 'black' boxes is valid. Actually, the two recorders are in bright orange cases, better to find them after an accident.

The term 'black' has gotten into the vernacular because it's supposed that 'mysterious' things happen inside...actually, it's not that mysterious.

I mentioned two recorders -- one is the CVR, or cockpit voice recorder (actually it not only records the sounds in the Flight Deck, but also the radio channels as well). The other is the DFDR, or digital flight data recorder. In the old days it was just the FDR...instrument inputs recorded on a foil tape...very difficult to interpret. Now, of course, data can be encoded digitally. ANYWAY, while these devices are designed to survive most crashes, they did not survive in the case of AA11, UA175 or AA77, as far as I know. UA93 was intentionally flown into the ground, and the recorders were readable, from what I'm told.

There was an accident some years ago, a USAir B737 outside of Pittsburgh, rolled over and went straight in. The boxes were recovered, and the data revealed. SO, UA93 boxes should have been attainable as well, just my opinion.

Hope this helps...



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


Damocles,

Had to post and look back at YOUR post again, sorry I'm not that computer savvy...

You posed a question about their appearing on RADAR. As I've mentioned before, in today's environment every student pilot is instructed from the get-go about something called a 'transponder'. The transponder is simply a device that, to use our term, 'squawks' a 4-digit code for the air traffic control computers to understand. The code '1200' is a standard squawk to denote that you are flying VFR (visual flight rules).

Airliners always operate, regardless of weather conditions, under IFR, or 'instrument flight rules'. That is per FAA regs that govern airline ops.

An airplane filed 'IFR' is assigned a discrete 'squawk' code, four digits ranging from 0001 to 7777. Actually, 0001 and 7777 will never be used...there are only 4096 approved combinations since some are reserved for other purposes. Point is, the hijacked airplanes were at cruise altitude, and in the system...but the transponders can be turned off, actually, set to 'standby', which means they no longer transmit their squawk, and no longer transmit altitude data. The ATC system was not geared up, then, to track airplanes when they suddenly reverted to 'primary' targets. Lots of confusion ensued...



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


Yes, I want to see the same clip because it is specifically about flame retardant additive they had developed to mix with the fuel to prevent fire in the event of a crash. The additive performed really well as few to none (can't remember) of the dummies were burned. This is important because people seem to think that the fire from the fuel melted the steel and the buildings collapsed.

I have had this video on my mind for a while, thanks for bringing it up.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Spoodily
 


Hello...yes, it would be interesting to know whether those tests amounted to anything.

My point was about remote controlling a jet...of course the 'pilot' was safely on the ground. And, this was a decade or so ago, and we know the military has UAVs and who knows what else...I'm just not convinced a 757 or 767 could be equipped for R/C without anyone knowing. I mean, the UAVs are designed specifically for one purpose. That's all I'm saying.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Spoodily
 



actually...and im going to be bad and try to fire this off the top of my head vs actually researching it...but i seem to recall that what the additive did was to minimize the aeresol effects of the fuel during a crash so that, whild youd still get a fire (wouldnt be much good as fuel if it didnt burn would it?) there wouldnt be an all encompasing fireball from fuel being turned into a spray and going everywhere and ignighting everything it landed on.

could be wrong but i seem to recall thats what the goal was there.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
I could have said the same thing for inexperienced Kamikaze fighter pilots who were so good in steering and damaging American warships. But then they were also not interested in landing either.


Inexperienced in what way? They knew how to take off and land in the plane that they were flying, even from the decks of aircraft carriers. They knew how to use basic aerial combat moves. They weren't flying at 500 miles per hour and they had a whole ship to aim at with their small plane. By the way, did ALL of them hit their targets? I wonder how many crashed into the sea, despite their best attempts to hit the ships.

Compare that to the hijackers who had never flown a 757 or 767 before, so they had no real feel for the plane in real flying conditions. They were travelling at 500 miles per hour and they had pinpoint accuracy with the way the planes struck the building.

Comparing chalk and cheese comes to mind.



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.

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

Not licensed to fly does not mean that he had never flown that plane before. I know plenty of teenagers not licensed to drive, yet they do so with ease.

How fast was his plane going? How much room for error did he have in terms of the plane size, compared to the target size?

Again, comparing chalk to cheese comes to mind.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by budski


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.


Hi John, This is my first time using ATS so forgive me for mistakes. Could you explain to me how you are prive to information from government employed scientists(lockheed)? Why can you not reveal this so called Holographic Technology? If the 9/11 attacks were indeed an inside job, why would you protect the people responsible by not divulging their technology? I hope that makes sense....

Also do Holograms show up on Radar??

and i mean no insult by questioning your seemingly endless sources of contacts.....

[edit on 28-11-2007 by Sandals24]

[edit on 28-11-2007 by Sandals24]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 07:05 AM
link   
I've been trying to find something (anything) about holographic weapons systems and all I can find is sighting/aiming devices and HUDs - this doesn't mean much of course

I'm not saying they don't exist, but it seems remarkable to me that someone would spill secret info over dinner (in a restaurant - guess those fieldcraft classes really paid off).

The only source of information about this is John Lear - and whilst I respect his opinion and believe he's entitled to it, that's all it is.

Not one shred of evidence has been provided - I suppose that's why they are called conspiracy "theories"

But this theory is being presented as fact, and I for one cannot and will not accept any of it without credible evidence of some sort.
An aged diagram out of a military book does not count as evidence IMO.

If I were a gullible or unwary person, I might believe this, but I'm rather more cynical than that - I believe in the old adage;
"believe none of what you hear and half of what you see", and as far as hologram planes crashing into the towers go I feel no need to suspend my disbelief - frankly it seems rather far fetched and designed to enhance something which I'd rather not go into.

I firmly believe that there was and is a conspiracy regarding 9/11, and that we are being taken for fools by the "higher ups" whoever they may be.
But stories (and it is a story, without proof or foundation) such as the hologram theory may do more to damage people who want to uncover what went on than any shady government department ever could.

That said, this is only MY belief - if other people support this "theory" then that's up to them, and good luck with it.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   
this hologram theory is rediculous. Read this article watch the video. Do you guys even research what you hear or do you just want to believe in a conspiracy so bad you believe anything you hear. Also all you who believe in this big conspiracy how if anything would change your mind that it was not a conspiracy. Please show me one piece of proof that can not be explained. Here is the website Fringe Theories Harming 9/11 Truth Movement
www.prisonplanet.com...
Also if you believe in the hologram theory does that mean all ufo sightings are holograms? Since the government is about to stage a faux ufo invasion. This site is interesting and you all get me thinking but you have to look at both side and ask yourself which is more likely. Which had more proof. There are pictures of plane parts at the world trade center, how did they get there, were they staged? Did anyone see that 911 history channel episode. I thought it pretty much debunked the 911 conspiracy theory.

Also for the building seven collapse
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse

sounds pretty cut and dry to me.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(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 don't remember john ever mentioning that Capt Burlingame was a friend. I am pretty sure they were not friends in real life, john doesn't seem to have anything in common with him.

john, imho, has reached a new low with this claim that Capt Burlingame is alive somewhere. Even if he was, do you really think that they would go through all the trouble of faking his death (complete with DNA evidence) and then let him freely roam the web to stumble upon one of johns rants?

If it was done as a joke, it was in poor taste. If it is a statement of fact, it needs proof (something never provided before). If it is his belief, it is time to get his head examined.

[edit on 28/11/07 by COOL HAND]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   
welll this thread has been 'massaged' and 'muddied' so it no longer
addresses the 'point'


2 of the 4 'alleged' pilots were not thought capable of flying huge commerical passanger aircrafts like 747s or larger.


way earlier in a reply in this thread i told of other training sites & pilot programs which where available and accessable to Hanjour during his
decade long stays in CA & AZ...particularly Scottsdale, Mesa, & Goodyear
where middle east pilots in training learn to fly those big commercial aircraft that fly the skys of Iraq Airways & Kuwait Airways.


I also suggested that Hanjour and possibly all the other supposed
Pilots that commandeered the 9-11 aircrafts were 'Names' that the
Intel wanted to be 'dead-ended' and for a investigative trail to be
abruptly ended.

Hanjour was one who leaded teams of potential pilots through the various flight schools and classes...
.and he most likely turned other mid-east men striving to be pilots
onto the CIA and other black-ops avenues of flight training...
(possibly to become double agents for a clandestine "Arab Brotherhood"
against the west.)
Each and every supposed 'pilot' was more likely
a militant-or-radicalized mid east man that the (our) intelligence
wanted to be protected in a 'stone-wall',
by declaring them dead is one way of taking them out of the equasion...

and if any of those 'pilots' or even the 'hijackers' were triple-agents for the (our) intelligence,then all the better...
they could be in deep cover Asset for a long period of time.







A flight school owner is not the instructor or testor, he is more concerned with the overall operation of the school and such...90% of his info comes 2nd hand from the people on-the-line interacting with the flight students,
lets see the printouts of Hanjours' flight simulator test & training
for the 747s or L1011s or Airbus.....as a comparison to that prop plane
assessment. more mis-direction, messageing, muddying the waters


Out.




[edit on 28-11-2007 by St Udio]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by St. Udio
lets see the printouts of Hanjours' flight simulator test & training
for the 747s or L1011s or Airbus.....as a comparison to that prop plane
assessment. more mis-direction, messageing, muddying the waters


Hani Hanijour's Jet Tech International file PDF

Photocopies were taken when Hani had approximately 250 hours total time.

74 hours of simulated instrument time.

Also, it proves that he really could solo a Cessna 172 and solo a Piper Aztec which is a twin-engine aircraft.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Originally posted by COOL HAND




john, imho, has reached a new low with this claim that Capt Burlingame is alive somewhere. Even if he was, do you really think that they would go through all the trouble of faking his death (complete with DNA evidence) and then let him freely roam the web to stumble upon one of johns rants?



Thanks for the post COOL HAND. I don't know what the deal was with Chic. I didn't know him or ever meet him. But he is alive. All DNA supposed evidence was faked.

I don't know what they told the participants in 911. It must have been a real good story to get all of them to agree to kill over three thousand of there fellow citizens.

Many deaths were faked on 911. No passengers or crew members died in any airplane crashed because there were no airplane crashes. It is an unfortunate and ill-informed public that would believe that airplanes crashed on 911.


If it was done as a joke, it was in poor taste. If it is a statement of fact, it needs proof (something never provided before). If it is his belief, it is time to get his head examined.


Yes, Chic, in my opinion is alive. He missed the top of the Pentagon by about 373 feet according the Digital Flight Data Recorder. Unfortunately, Wendy his daughter is not and he will have to live, wherever he is, with that fact.

Thanks for your post and your input, it is always welcome.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 





I don't know what the deal was with Chic. I didn't know him or ever meet him. But he is alive. All DNA supposed evidence was faked.

I don't know what they told the participants in 911. It must have been a real good story to get all of them to agree to kill over three thousand of there fellow citizens.

Many deaths were faked on 911. No passengers or crew members died in any airplane crashed because there were no airplane crashes. It is an unfortunate and ill-informed public that would believe that airplanes crashed on 911.

Personally, I'd like to see some evidence of this - again opinion is being presented as fact.

According to this, I am unfortunate and ill informed, while that may be so, I am not delusional - or at least not delusional enough to believe this "theory"

And again, no evidence of anything offered other than shady conversations over dinner about alleged hologram systems supposedly capable of fooling thousands of people.

Sorry, but I don't buy any of this.
Conspiracies are one thing - Buck Rogers is something else



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


I see you have avoided my question? Why cant you explain holographic technology???? If your so well informed? I put it to you you dont know anything...

Also I find your assertion that no crew members or passengers died in the Plane crashes as quite frankly disgusting!!

How people can ignore the grieving familys of those lost on 9/11 is absurd! Im English i dont know anyone who died in the attacks but every time i see the footage of the planes hitting the WTC it brings a tear to my eye.

To make up!! with no evidence whatsoever!! that it was faked is utterly disgusting! you should be ashamed!

do you sleep at night??



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Originally posted by weedwhacker





ANYWAY, while these devices are designed to survive most crashes, they did not survive in the case of AA11, UA175 or AA77, as far as I know.



This statement is untrue. The DFDR data for AA77 can be found here:

z9.invisionfree.com...

Download it and open it in Excel. Let me know if you need help reading it. I am very familiar with the data.


UA93 was intentionally flown into the ground, and the recorders were readable, from what I'm told.


Apparently the data is available although I haven't read it yet. UA93 was not flown into any ground anywhere. After it unloaded its passengers in Cleveland into NASA's hangar there I don't know where it went. But it did not crash into any ground anywhere.


There was an accident some years ago, a USAIR B737 outside of Pittsburgh, rolled over and went straight in. The boxes were recovered, and the data revealed.


That was September 8, 1994, USAIR Flight 427 a Boeing 737. It was a pilot suicide that was covered up by an alleged yaw damper failure. Another pilot suicide was March 3, 1991, United Airlines Flight 585 in Colorado Springs another Boeing 737. This accident was originally attributed to 'roll clouds' and subsequently changed to a yaw damper malfunction. The reason the pilot commited suicide was because his co-pilot, which was his girlfriend, had told him their relationship was over, while inflight between Denver and Colorado Springs. He half rolled the airplane on final approach. The girl, in an attempt to recover the airplane actually twisted the yoke 120 degrees opposite to the captains yoke. An amazing feat of strength but futile as the airplane crashed upside down killing all aboard.

The true cause of both of these accidents was carefully hidden from the public for obvious reasons.


SO, UA93 boxes should have been attainable as well, just my opinion.


Yes the information is available but the airplane did not crash.

Thanks for your post.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
www.prisonplanet.com...

at the bottom is a picture of wreckage at the WTC (for those who think that planes weren't at the WTC site. For people to say that it never happened is insane. For intellegent people to say it never happened is insane. For people to use their imagination to come up with outrageous ideas as to how 9.11 really happened is insane. People really insult their own intellegence when they "invent"these crazy theories with no proof. People died that day and thousands of people have mourned their death. To claim that they are alive or that they never existed is very insulting to them and their families.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Hello John? Answer my questions....




top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join