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.

 

The end of 'Terrorist Couldn't Fly Planes That Well' threads

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Thanks John, that helps somewhat. I hope you will graciously take the time to set me straight on the content of my questions. I think your opinion is correct. Holograms. I don't think that planes could have accurately been used. Thankyou.




posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


As with the north tower, I believe the reason why the impact damage is almost identical because both pilots appear to have banked at the last second in order to "spread" the damage over more floors, instead of simply going in straight and flat which would have been considerably less damage. Maybe someone else could elaborate further on this idea?



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by michial
 

You don't need a clearance or special code to use the FMS. If you're in the pilot or co-pilot's chair, you have full access to all the controls. The pilots can do what they want with the aircraft.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
As with the north tower, I believe the reason why the impact damage is almost identical because both pilots appear to have banked at the last second in order to "spread" the damage over more floors, instead of simply going in straight and flat which would have been considerably less damage. Maybe someone else could elaborate further on this idea?


The second plane hit at an angle through the side of the building causing less damage then the north tower.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Lost it again. Thanks dbates. I think I see what you are saying Stillresearchn911.I don't remember which thread it was now, but I rember the argument or discussion if you will about the damage and the construction of the Towers. I asked how they could have missed the floor slabs accurately and someone said they didn't think that the hijackers were worrying about that and were just trying to hit the buildings. My thoughts are that if they would have hit any of the floor slabs they would have had a huge surprise and not penetrated the buildings. I hope John can fill me in about my questions about artificially generated weather due to buildings and how it would affect the accuracy of someone trying to fly in those unpredictable circumstances because I am not convinced that you can fly accurately enough to hit where they did especially on building 2, therefore No planes.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Yet the South Tower, hit second and damaged less, fell first. It just defies explanation, unless there was more in play that day than jets flown by hijackers.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Yet the South Tower, hit second and damaged less, fell first. It just defies explanation, unless there was more in play that day than jets flown by hijackers.


You also see molten metals and thermite reactions coming from the South tower.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I support the CD theory, whether it was a plasma nuke, as JL espouses, or some other type of planted explosive. I don't know about the hologram theory, but I can see squibs, or whatever, in the videos as the building comes down, with lower floors giving way ahead of the falling upper floors. The buildings fall in their own footprints, a CD fingerprint, whereas with just the damage from the jets alone, I would have expected them to topple over from the top, at best. I was completely stunned when those towers collapsed the way they did.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
dbates...all respect to a moderator.

I don't know what Flight Safety simulator you were in...I've flown a few sims in my time and NONE of them (these re-create the real airplane) will actuate the flaps/slats or the landing gear. No auto-flight system on any commercial airplane will do that, to my knowledge. Please, tell us what simulator you were in. Please, tell us what flying experience you have in order to justify what you posted. Please....



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Yes, I realize that the aircraft switches to ILS from FMS on close approach, but the FMS can put the aircraft in the proper approach so that it can switch to ILS. The Gulfstream simulator I was in automatically switches between FMS to ILS and then automatically back to FMS if you don't land. Fly-around routes on missed landings (for whatever reason) are already in the system and the FMS will do everything for you if you let it.

Modern FMS like the Pegasus FANS that the Boeing planes use controls altitude as well as heading. In an attempt to maximize fuel effeciency the FMS can adjust the plane's altitude as it calculates the weight changes during in-flight fuel useage. Commercial airlines have small database of predetermined routes, but you can manually tell the FMS what altitude you prefer if you want.

As far as banking during flight, the pilots make that determination on the mode control panel. Also note on this panel (did you click on the link?) that there is a selection for vertical navigation and lateral navigation. The FMS is able to control your height as long as you're at least 400 feet off the ground (The towers were about 1,700 feet tall). All this can be pre-programmed into a route. I realize you have quite a bit of aircraft experience, but have you stepped into a cockpit lately? Things have changed quite a bit in the last 10 years.

Lastly, civilian GPS signals are accurate to about 50 feet and that doesn't mean that it's guranteed to be 50 feet off. It could be dead on, 50 feet off, or anywhere in between. That's why I initially said that the second plane banked towards the end. GPS navigation isn't perfect, but more than accurate enough to point the plane right at the building automatically leaving the pilot to make only a minor adjustment.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Dude, Mr. dbates...Capt Lear is correct in that an airplane would not be flown into the WTC towers while coupled to the autopilot. It would have to be done by a human at the controls. YES, airplanes can autoland, using the ILS ground-based facilities along with a 'fail-passive' or 'fail-active' auto flight system, depending on the airplane. BUT I have never seen anhy auto-flight system that will extend flaps and slats and landing gear. Furthermore, a missed approach is pilot initiated, not automatic. True, the technology allows for approaches and landings in visibility conditions that were previously beyond the capabilities of a human without help...but the human MUST be there in order for the system to work.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Let me ask my question again: If, as you suggest, the 'hijackers' programmed the FMS with a route to hit the towers, how do you explain the wildly erratic routes all four planes took? Why would the 'hijackers' program a course that doesn't take them directly to their targets? The longer they are in the air the greater the chance that they could be intercepted.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
NONE of them (these re-create the real airplane) will actuate the flaps/slats or the landing gear.

Well, I never said landing gear worked automatically. As I mentioned the FMS only worked up to 400 feet off the ground. The autopilot does everything but land the plane though. It flies holding patterns and final approach all by itself. I'm pretty sure that it adjusts the flaps for you on approach. I can double check that. I am sure that it's amazingly accurate. The plane was nearly on the runway before we had to touch the controls.

The simulator I was in is Gulfstream's G500. The simulator is so good that you can get a FAA certification on this aircraft without ever stepping foot into a real G500. My father-in-law is an instructor for Flight Safety International and has over 30 years of flight experience. He knows his stuff. That's the source of my information. He says that the FANS is difficult for some older pilots to adjust to. It's just odd to let the plane bank, and adjust it's altitude automatically when you know you're only 1,000 feet off the ground.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
but if the terrorists used the automatic flight planning system software and puted in the program there flight path to the towers then would not all the data that they inserted be saved on the blackboxes , that were supposedly recovered by the firemen , and i doubt the goverment would keep the use of the automatic flight planning system software by the terrorists omited since that would only back up the official story of how they skillfully piloted the planes



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


It probably took them a bit to load the new flight path into the FMS after they siezed control of the cockpit. They didn't have any idea how to navigate so they just flew around aimlessly until the FMS had the flight plan they wanted loaded. That acutally explains what you're talking about. If they didn't use the FMS they would have headed for New York City right away. My theory explains your problem better than any other.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


dbates...I posted this already...the basic understanding of the FMS does not require loading a full flight plan.

On the B757/767 you just push the 'LEGS' key on the FMC panel, then the legs page comes up. You then type in the waypoint (my example, for instance, was 'KJFK', the ICAO identifier for Kennedy Int'l) and press the 'execute' button. A course line will then show, in magenta, on the EHSI. No need to engage the autopilot, just follow the line...there is a graphic representation of the airplane and its relation to the desired path.

Once in the vicinity of New York, it was easy to take over visually...



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
OK, heres a thought......

putting the "whodunnits" to one side......

I personally think that it was well planned, i doubt that it could have been done "un-assisted"

What if there was an ILS put into the towers or near the towers, or perhaps a microwave landing system.

There are mobile ILS systems out there, and it might explain why another building suddenly collapsed (if it had equipment that needed to be hidden within it).

Was it on the flight path by any chance?

Might be worth looking at where an ILS would need to be set up for the flight paths, and if there was any unusual things going on at possible sites.
jpals
more jpals
your going to love this one
boeing and jpals
picture of jpals



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by 2ciewan
 


2ciewan...no, unlikely that a 'portable' ILS was used, and even more unlikely that an MLS was set up either. Remember, these Saudis were not commercial pilots, not instrument rated. I've mentioned before, all they had to know about the cockpit was: where the transponder was, to turn it off (actually to 'standby') and how to disconnect the autopilot and autothrottles. BTW, simply over-powering an autopilot by moving the control wheel will cause a disconnect, but in the B757/767 it sets of the 'Master Warning' which includes a red light and an annoying warning sound.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
dbates and weedwhacker

NTSB Study of Autopilot and Navigational Equipment of Flight 93 and Flight 77 (PDF)

Maybe using the data from the DFDR from the recover black boxes will give an idea of what was happening on the two World Trade Center aircraft.

To the poster mentioning the Sears Tower as a possible target for flight 93, the VOR receivers on that aircraft were tuned in to the VOR at DCA (Reagan National).



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Just a little correction for you weedwhacker. Mohamed Atta was from Egypt. He flew American 11 into the North Tower. Marwan al-shehhi was from the UAE. He flew United 175 into the South Tower.

Both pilots had their commercial ratings. Both pilots had their instrument ratings.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join