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.

 

To all Believers of the Official Story:

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


If that is the case as you are stating, why is it in order to become a certified pilot to fly commercial jetliners, not only do students have to fly with instructors for quite a number of flight hours, but also maintain high proficiency during quite a number of solo flight hours? Plus, pass written tests.

Could it be that there is no actual relative comparisons between using a flight simulator, and actually having to deal with all conditions involved in flying commercial jetliners?

Therefore, relatively speaking, isn't a flight simulator a better comparison to a video arcade game, than actually flying commercial jetliners under any and all what can be highly stressful physical conditions?

Particularly, in light of the fact, flight simulators are pre-programmed by computers (virtual reality), and physical reality is not.




posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Conundrum04
 


Lets say we leave the Level II Sarcasm aside and stick to the topic. Remember hate the game not the player

Thanks
FredT, Moderator



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Conundrum04
 


Hey, give the guy a break, at least he is willing to discuss and look at other views.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   
So I take it there is nothing in the official story that does'nt raise an eyebrow.

like the eye witness report from firemen of explosions coming from the basement of the towers.

The refusal to release all of the camera footage from all around the Pentagon.

Building 7 unexplained collapse and complete destruction of all super sensitive records.

How come u could see choppers flying back and forth on one live feed but on another live feed they just don't line up.This one is from the missile theory I just found this chopper one very interesting.

Sorry for this but me and Mrs still say to each other about Shanksville no plane about Pentagon That's the Pentagon it should have been shot out of the sky it should have a large plane in pieces .



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Toy_soldier
 


It appears you fell into this logical fallacy trap example. "If no one can prove there are blackholes, then they must not exist." How would anyone know if they exist, unless they keep up with the lastest astronomy has to offer for proved data?



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow

watch ZEITGEIST now

[edit on 2-1-2008 by dbates]

+1 I have got to say that is one of the best and most informative movies I have seen. Although some may be scared of by the Christian part at the start.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Matt Kilby
 


An eye opener that smacks you with undeniable thruths huh?!

Sure changed my view on certain issues, spread the word, I know I have.



watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Hmmm

Perhaps another angle:

Why if you believe the official story, would you bother to come onto a conspiracy site to begin with?

I believe it is your subconciousnesses that have bought you here. A minghty powerful tool it is.

watchZEITGEISTnow


No, it's like passing an accident on the freeway or watching Jerry Springer. I am compelled to look out of shear entertainment value.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Hmmm

Perhaps another angle:

Why if you believe the official story, would you bother to come onto a conspiracy site to begin with?

I believe it is your subconciousnesses that have bought you here. A minghty powerful tool it is.

watchZEITGEISTnow


No, it's like passing an accident on the freeway or watching Jerry Springer. I am compelled to look out of shear entertainment value.


Well, that says enough about you, I hope you enjoy yourself, and thanks for the input!



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Hi,
No, I do not believe in everything, as explained in the "official" reports.

We spend, IMHO, far, far to much time seriously discussing absolutely fringe ideas which discredits the whole movement.

I can, with 99% certainty, relate that most people who come across me on these boards would INSIST I am a "debunker". Actually, I am not. What bothers me is the Truth movement is so fringe, so polluted with dishonest people and spends it's time talking about things that are - honestly now - absurd that I find myself on the debunker's side most of the time.

Instead of the absurd claims that no plane crashed in Pennsylvania (or any of the other various permutations on that theme), how about we discuss how it got there?

This is a opinion narrative:
My understanding is there are a bunch of witnesses that to this day insist they heard/saw/felt outside explosions, sounds, etc before the plane hit the ground. One of the engines was found quite a ways from the actual wreck. Why? The NTSB admits there is no evidence the passengers ever got in the cockpit, others who have heard the tape claim there is no evidence they even got near it. Why did the plane crash in an out of control manor? Maybe the hijacker intentionally flew the plane in upside down at an amazing angle. Why would he do this? Why so few pictures of the crash site? Why is the cockpit recording not public information?

I think there are far, far more inconsistencies with this one planes' final moments, than any other "conspiracy".

My opinion? The plane was shot down. Proof? I have none. As a casual observer, there seems to be a lot of questions around this particular plane's final moments.

Of course, I could be 110% wrong, I concede that. But, I wanted to give you a complete answer.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
If that is the case as you are stating, why is it in order to become a certified pilot to fly commercial jetliners, not only do students have to fly with instructors for quite a number of flight hours, but also maintain high proficiency during quite a number of solo flight hours? Plus, pass written tests.


Ok, let me do this slowly...

ALL training/proficiency for the airlines is done in the flight Sim, because they are rated as the real plane.

As example; In the Air Force for the large C-17 cargo aircraft the student’s first real flight is their check ride after doing ALL their training in the sim.

The actual flying of the aircraft is easy. The proficiency that you talk about is the many different types of approaches and landings, and I think it is safe to assume that the hijackers were not worried about landing.



Could it be that there is no actual relative comparisons between using a flight simulator, and actually having to deal with all conditions involved in flying commercial jetliners?


Actually the sim can easily be harder...



Therefore, relatively speaking, isn't a flight simulator a better comparison to a video arcade game, than actually flying commercial jetliners under any and all what can be highly stressful physical conditions?


Nope for it acts, feels, and moves like the real thing. BTW do you find flying to be a highly stressful physical condition? I'll tell you what is stressful is to have a sim instructor throw a bunch of emergencies at you.



Particularly, in light of the fact, flight simulators are pre-programmed by computers (virtual reality), and physical reality is not.


You really need to visit a flight sim...



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

Hi,
No, I do not believe in everything, as explained in the "official" reports.

We spend, IMHO, far, far to much time seriously discussing absolutely fringe ideas which discredits the whole movement.

I can, with 99% certainty, relate that most people who come across me on these boards would INSIST I am a "debunker". Actually, I am not. What bothers me is the Truth movement is so fringe, so polluted with dishonest people and spends it's time talking about things that are - honestly now - absurd that I find myself on the debunker's side most of the time.


That is quite a baseless broad tar brush to spread over at least 40% of the US population and 65% of world population. Could you please explain what you intended to mean by "dishonest" using specifics instead?

No one hypothesizing/personally opining can be dishonest to others, because it is only opinion, without presentation of deliberately misleading physical matter facetiously passed off as "physical evidence".

Whenever you have an opinion in disagreement with others, does that automatically make you and others dishonest because of differing opinions (hypotheses)?

What have you done to honestly disprove an opponent beyond your own opinion? Have you physically proved beyond a reasonable doubt any alleged plane crashed at the exact site indicated by the "official" reports? If others have established, including proving physical evidence is false and no plane could have crashed at a particular site, how does that make your oppostion dishonest, when it becomes self-evident no alleged planes crashed in Shanksville PA, the Pentagon, or WTC?

If you are not interested in the full truth concerning 9/11, that is your perogative. However, it is not your perogative to baselessly denigrate many, many others who are. Is it really any concern of yours how other people do what you opine as "wasting their time"? If so, why would that be?

Your time is only being wasted by others if you subjectively believe others are wasting your time. So why allow that or complain about it when you allow others, in your opinion, to waste your time?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Well, I would certainly be highly interested to see someone become proficient during all actual weather conditions in some flight simulator. Or another plane suddenly crossing a path and having to actually expertly maneuver all that weight, mass, momentum and velocity of actual Boeing commercial jetcraft, etc. Under all actual air pressure and gravity conditions. particularly sudden changes due to planes having any tech or machine problem - major or minor.

As I previously stated, simulators are pre-programmed computers and real life is not.

Are you saying that pilots of commercial jetliners no longer have to spend many quality hours with and without instructors before they are certified to actually fly carrying a payload?

How would you like your surgeon to be solely trained on a surgical simulator and operate on you?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
This is a reply to SlightlyAbovePar.


"Instead of the absurd claims that no plane crashed in Pennsylvania (or any of the other various permutations on that theme), how about we discuss how it got there?"


Do you want to see the footage where the mayor of Shanksville, the town where it supposedly crashed, says on tv, on 911, that "there was no plane"?

[edit on 3/1/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 3/1/08 by enigmania]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Well, I would certainly be highly interested to see someone become proficient during all actual weather conditions in some flight simulator.


Actually this is the easiest simulation to create like the aircraft. In the real airplane in IFR conditions you can’t see a thing outside so you use your instruments for everything to see. Also at night you use your instruments all the time.




Or another plane suddenly crossing a path and having to actually expertly maneuver all that weight, mass, momentum and velocity of actual Boeing commercial jetcraft, etc. Under all actual air pressure and gravity conditions. particularly sudden changes due to planes having any tech or machine problem - major or minor.


What do you think we have up there big windows. You can't see much outside anyways. I'm sorry but I actually laughed when I read this...
But what are we talking here, we are talking about the hijackers that flew the planes visually on a clear day into the towers. That is not a hard event to accomplish.



As I previously stated, simulators are pre-programmed computers and real life is not.


This just doesn't make sense for you walk into a sim and it is the inside of an aircraft with the exact same stuff as the real thing. It sits 15 feet off the ground on hydraulics to kick you around. It flies like the real thing with no preprogrammed event.



Are you saying that pilots of commercial jetliners no longer have to spend many quality hours with and without instructors before they are certified to actually fly carrying a payload?


How many times do I need to say this...

If an airlines hires you as a pilot for an aircraft you have never flown before your very first real flight with them will have passengers on board with all your training done in the sim.

Now in this case you already have a commercial license, but once again we are only talking about flying those planes on a clear day into the towers.



How would you like your surgeon to be solely trained on a surgical simulator and operate on you?


Well a surgeon is not a glorified bus driver is he?

Look I been flying for 27 years and if you think I'm full of crap then just say so, and we can merrily disagree, but the fact is those guys could easily of flown those airplanes into the towers with their limited flight experience and I would say the proof is that they did.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


If that is what you choose to believe, by all means believe it.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStarsFlight simulators are like playing at video arcarde. Any movement to simulate flight is hardly enough to prepare someone to immediately be capable of flying any actual commercial jetliner.


That's wrong!

Type ratings, recurrancy training and tests, and lots of other things that's
considered too dangerous or too expencive to do in the real aircraft is done in the sim.

It's certified just like the real thing.
___________________________________

Level D B737-NG sim form outside:

i11.tinypic.com...

From inside:

i11.tinypic.com...

And the real thing:

i11.tinypic.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars


That is quite a baseless broad tar brush to spread over at least 40% of the US population and 65% of world population. Could you please explain what you intended to mean by "dishonest" using specifics instead?


40%??? Get real dude! Below is a graph I just pulled from Alexa

Guess what? Barney.com (yes the purple dinosaur) has more "enthusiasts" than infowars, prisonplanet, and 911truth.org.

Hotwheels.com has more views than all of the conspiracy sites --combined!





I think it is hilarious that there are more Barney fans than there are people viewing Prisonplanet. Seeing as Barney's fanbase is too young to access the internet-- I feel these numbers are grossly skewed..

If barney and hotwheel fans united they would crush the truthmovement.. F,,Fu,,Fourty per cent...man, that's entertainment. Try less than 1%. (Biased propaganda polls excluded)



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freaky_Animal

That's wrong!

Type ratings, recurrancy training and tests, and lots of other things that's
considered too dangerous or too expencive to do in the real aircraft is done in the sim.

It's certified just like the real thing.



Why and how is it "just like the real thing". If something is "too dangerous or too expencive" to perform in a real airplane, how is that "just like the real thing"? If it was "just like the real thing", there should be no problem accomplishing the same in a real airplane. "Just like the real thing" has the same weight, mass and velocity attached to the ground as real airplanes? Yes, it definitely makes a difference in real airplanes.

If life was a pre-progammed computer of virtual reality, nothing would be "too dangerous or too expencive " to perform either.

Now this message from a real pilot member of Pilots for 9/11 truth:

www.pilotsfor911truth.org...




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join