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: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Unless anyone has been privvy to the actual events transpiring as they transpired, what the "official" reports state is all hearsay. With all the proved inconsistancies in all "official" reports, nothing in any "official" reports can legitimately be taken at face value.




posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

If the hijackers had the training in the sims, how come they did not know how to use the radio and intecom. Several times they thought they were talking to the passengers when they were broadcasting?


Maybe they didn't get to that part of the training. As far as we know they had very low time in commercial aircraft simulators. Do you think passenger cabin communications is at the top of the list of priorities when a person rents a simulator?




It only takes about 4 seconds the set the hijack codes on the transponder.
Under ideal conditions according to John Lear. Do you consider having 2 hijackers trying to commandeer your aircraft as ideal?



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

If the hijackers came forward and ripped my little headset off my head then my ability to communicate is gone with no need to subdue.
Good point. That's something that never crossed my mind while discussing why the pilots didn't get off a radio call with other members on this forum.

Think of a reason why the pilots didn't roll the aircraft upside down to subdue the hijackers because that question is coming. No doubt about it, it's coming.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Since, as you just pointed out, "they" (whoever exact they alleged hijackers were) did not have very much time in flight simulators. Then how was it "official" reports describe any of them as making aircraft maneuvers, only potentially capable of being made by expert pilots, of many long hours of actual flight service?

That information came from the descriptions of hairpin turning described by NORAD and FAA reports, concerning alleged flights 77 and 93. There have been current and ex-military pilots stating it would be almost impossible for commerical jetliners, to have made those sudden narrow turns as performed by an expert pilot, much less anyone alleged to have only having sat in a flight simulator, with no actual hours of flying commercial jetliners.

www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

"At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed."

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. The footnote "59, 60, 61" refers to The Flight Path Study of American 77 provided by the NTSB, which no one can find. One person claims to have called the NTSB and the NTSB says they havent done any reports/analysis for any of the aircraft of Sept 11. NTSB phone in DC (202)-314-6000. I tried, but i hit brick walls. Update: 8/11/06 NTSB Flight Path Study released.

So, lets go on what we have. The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. Thats 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots (Update: FDR data shows 325 knots average airspeed. 9/11 Commission Report is inaccurate). Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the final impact speed was 530 mph. Update: FDR is now available and the 9/11 report is inaccurate in terms of impact speed.

So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we dont know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We'll get to him later...

Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree.

So, who pulled off this stunt?

Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two seperate CFI's took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you "get it" if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost. All this can be confirmed through google searches."



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I don't recall the official story stating that the hairpin turns and maneuvers were impossible or could only be done by expert pilots. Flying is flying. Pull back on the yoke and airplane goes up. Push forward on the yoke the airplane goes down. Turn the yoke right and the airplane banks right.

The above statements apply if the aircraft is flying straight and level with constant power settings and not near stall speed.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


If alleged Flight 93 and 77 are not impossible enough to make, that flight path of alleged Flight 175 is a humdinger, with not one, but two, near perpendicular turns no aircraft can make. A grounded vehicle cannot make those type of turns without veering out in an arc away from curblines, particularly trucks large and small. Alleged flight 93 has been shown even tighter, if people search the various Internet sites for diagrams of those. The authors say they got their infomation from"official" reports.

killtown.911review.org...



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Ok I'm done with this topic. People like OrionStars are very dead set in their conspiracy. I have written about all I can say on the subject without repeating myself.

As the questions come forward I do not even think many read what I have written, or at least they feel I'm full of crap.

I hope you all find your conspiracy with the level of faith you have in it. Maybe one day we will have further information one way or the other, but to all the conspiracy guys I would not totally discount everything just because it is part of the official story. And I would not be so one sided to only accept information that you feel backs up your hypothesis.

When OrionStars stated


Originally posted by OrionStars
Unless anyone has been privvy to the actual events transpiring as they transpired, what the "official" reports state is all hearsay. With all the proved inconsistancies in all "official" reports, nothing in any "official" reports can legitimately be taken at face value.


I knew this would be an endless circle.

How do we take your fledgling hypothesis if the official report is all hearsay and cannot be taken at face value?

Some of you have really hijacked this thread and turned it into one of those other endless 9/11 threads. The OP wanted to know why people thought the way they did, and not start the whole issue back up again.

To get this thread back on track the reason I feel the way I do is based on my 24 years of flying large transport aircraft in the Air Force.

Because of that I'll take my experience over someone who reads a few articials on the web and then thinks they can debate as an expert.

You better come up with something better than John Lear's alien technology based hologram hypothesis to get me to change my view.


[edit on 4-1-2008 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
If alleged Flight 93 and 77 are not impossible enough to make, that flight path of alleged Flight 175 is a humdinger, with not one, but two, near perpendicular turns no aircraft can make.


Are you kidding? Or are you just trying to say anything and everything?

Looking at the flight paths from your source do you realize that what looks like sharp turns are actually much wider since the map covers many states in size?

If you were able to zoom down to a 10 mile radius you would see a very easy turn, but since it is so zoomed out to show the whole route it looks sharp.


perpendicular turns no aircraft can make


Come on my friend are you that blinded by your own convictions?



[edit on 4-1-2008 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Considering the authors are claiming to have gotten the information from "official" reports, no matter how many states are involved, a near perpendicular turn, on diagram, is still a near perpendicular turn, on diagram, no physical aircraft can possibly make. Commercial jets are not UFOs asserted to do anything possible that can be done in virtual reality.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero


perpendicular turns no aircraft can make


Come on my friend are you that blinded by your own convictions?



[edit on 4-1-2008 by Xtrozero]


I guess he's still obsessed with that foil hat theory that no airliner can make a 270 degree turn.


Have made my share of 360's when high and hot, even in heavy jets



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Freaky_Animal
 


On that note, why don't you prove commercial jetliners are capable of tight turning according to what you wrote? I did not say commercial jetliners cannot make 360 degree circles. However, they are certainly not making that circle without arcing wide all the way through a 360 degree circle, are they? They are not exactly military jetcraft approximately half their size, including weight and mass.

Commercial jetliners are incapable of making anything resembling a near perfect 90 degree perpendicular angle. If you believe they are, please prove it in physical reality.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Someone kicks the door in and the first thing I hear is a loud BANG! While not being able to see the door, the VERY first thing I do is check my instruments such as pressurization and engines. If the hijackers came forward and ripped my little headset off my head then my ability to communicate is gone with no need to subdue. Being locked in a seat belt I would not be able to do anything but wave my arms over my head as they cut my throat.


[edit on 4-1-2008 by Xtrozero]


I didn't realize it was that easy to kick in the cockpit door of a commercial airplane. Really, one kick?

I know you are a pilot so I'm not being sarcastic here. From what I've understood in the past, it's very difficult to get into the cockpit.

I'm I wrong? Wouldn't you hear someone trying to kick open the door?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Those cockpit doors were mostly fairly flimsy (lightweight) up till 9/11. Up till that time the 'standard' hijacking was some revolutionary nutcase demanding to be flown somewhere IE he still needed the pilot to get there. Even with 'secure' doors check out how often it gets opened during your next flight with flight attendants delivering snacks etc.

For the pilots:
As to the issue of planes making sharp turns - isn't it just an issue of having manual control, how many g's you and the plane can stand plus how much altitude you're prepared to lose before levelling out?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Apparently, they were not too flimsy. In Wiki, one article states one of the steel service trolleys was used as a battering ram. The doors were supposed to be locked, in order to avoid having any passengers just wandering into the cockpit areas whenever they felt like it. When I was flying the friendly skies of United, Continental, and American, I do not recall those doors being all that flimsy even then. That was long prior to 9/11/2001.

en.wikipedia.org...

"The tape is reported to contain voices saying "Allahu Akbar," shouts in English that included "Let's get them!" and "We have to (muffled but probably "get") in the cockpit. If we don't, we'll die." Then, screaming and other sounds are heard, followed by silence. Sounds of crockery smashing have led to the conclusion that a service trolley was used as a battering ram to force open the cockpit door."

"Allahu Akbar" shouts in English? OK.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by XtrozeroWith the aircraft that you said that knew that there were hijackings going and still didn’t do anything I do not know in that situation.


With cock pit being samll and cramped 1 pilot could have held the hijackers at bay while the other called in what was going on.

What pilot is going to hand over his aircraft to a hijacker without a fight ?

Flight 93 was sent 2 messages through company system.
One was to secure cockpit doors and the other was about the first 2 hijackings.



[edit on 5-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conundrum04
I'm I wrong? Wouldn't you hear someone trying to kick open the door?

If you look at them now they are steel reinforced doors, but prior to 9/11 they were flimsy Aluminum sliding bolt locks on a thin sheet of Aluminum covered with padding and cloth. One good kick and it would be open, and on my military planes we don’t even have any flight deck doors.

If someone kicked the door in you would hear the noise, but on an aircraft there are a lot of things that can make a very loud noise that the pilots are tuned into incase of an emergency. Two off the top of my head would be a rapid depressurization or a compressor stall on an engine. Any loud bang on an already somewhat noisy aircraft is not instantly discernable as to where it came from and their training would have them scanning their instruments first to make sure everything was OK with the airplane.



[edit on 5-1-2008 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
With cock pit being samll and cramped 1 pilot could have held the hijackers at bay while the other called in what was going on.

What pilot is going to hand over his aircraft to a hijacker without a fight ?


I agree with you if a pilot actually got out of their seat. If the pilots stayed in their seats with seatbelts and shoulder harness on then they are quickly toast. Also prior to 9/11, pilots were never killed and aircrew training on hijacking (little that there was) was based only on threats to the pilots if they didn’t do the hijackers demands. These scenarios were all based around lengthily amount of time and not seconds to live.

Also getting in and out of a pilot seat is not that easy to do. You kind of slowly snake your way in and out.

All I can say is if both pilots were in their seats with their seatbelts on and they didn't know they were being hijacked prior to the door being kicked in then they would be toast and really could not do much.

Someone needs to run a scenario; go to the mothball fleet in Bakersfield Ca and see how hard it is to kick in an older type door. Then have two people strap in the pilot seat and run scenarios of the hijackers coming in ripping their headset off their heads and cutting their throats.

Since these pilots as I said would have first looked at their instruments (maybe 2 or 3 secs) then they would try and look behind them (not that easy to do with straps on) as they finally realized someone entered the flight deck (1 to 2 secs) and then turn back to grab the control column to make a call just to find either their headsets were being pulled off or that their heads were gripped and a knife was slicing at their throats, and in either case their hands would no longer be on the control column but trying to reach behind them to defend themselves while seated and strapped in.

If one pilot was out of the seat at least it would be a scuffle for a longer period of time and a call would then 100% have been made.

In any case from my perspective, the hijackers were very successful in their attempts of very achievable events. There really needs to be some kind of external smoking gun to disprove this didn’t happen for there is not anything I can see that disproves the takeover of the aircraft from just the perspective of what went on up in the air.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
If someone kicked the door in you would hear the noise, but on an aircraft there are a lot of things that can make a very loud noise that the pilots are tuned into incase of an emergency. Two off the top of my head would be a rapid depressurization or a compressor stall on an engine. Any loud bang on an already somewhat noisy aircraft is not instantly discernable as to where it came from and their training would have them scanning their instruments first to make sure everything was OK with the airplane.



[edit on 5-1-2008 by Xtrozero]


On the B757/767 if a loud bang was heard my instinctive reaction would be to scan the engine instruments in front of me, then cycle the lower DU thru engine, system and doors.
Then if no master caution present go back to engine instruments to look for vibrations or any other abnormal readings, comressor stalls on large turbofans sometimes doesn't show up on the instruments right away, but requires monitoring of engine instruments for a while.

The FO would be busy overhead checking pressurization, generators and hydraulics.

This would take more than just a few seconds, with headset on it's not a easy task to decide from where a loud sound is coming, and strapped up in our seats the hijackers would have a easy match.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Freaky_Animal
 


Would the crew in the cockpit be so deaf they could not determine from which direction a bang was heard, if someone was trying to kick in the cockpit door? They certainly know when the stewards or stewardesses are knocking on the door to bring them coffee, snacks, or breakfast, lunch, or dinner.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Hi Orion & others,
I don't know this to be a fact, so let me make that disclaimer from the outset. I'll try to dig up something that lines up with or refutes that a little later (family life calls even though I would love to continue to read and drink some more coffee).

Didn't the hijackers kill several people in the cabin, including flight attendants on each flight and then threaten more killings unless they were given access to the cockpit? I think I have read that FLT 93 was taken over when the FA did, in fact, do what your saying; i.e. just knock on the door. When the FLT crew opened the door, they attacked her, slit her throat and then attacked the two pilots.

I think it might be helpful to remember that the common strategy, until 9-11, was to give hijackers whatever they wanted. As a matter of fact, pilots were trained to be submissive and give them (hijackers) whatever they could. How do I know this? Brother-in-law as a Capitan on 727's for a major airline explained that was the industry standard: give in, fly them around, they make a political statement (or a few), then typically get off. That certainly was the experience before 9-11.

That made perfect sense at the time. Of course now; total lunacy. I'm not saying it made the policy right, or correct but it does do a lot to bring the discussion into focus and under a clearer light.

The things that seem so obvious, and hard to believe (give up control of the airplane?!?) now had never been faced before.

Hindsight makes these events appear very clear, but I submit the fog of stress, unfamiliar events, no history to judge your current situation and a country asleep at the wheel goes very far in explaining things that, today, seem out of place.

I met one of the pilots on United FLT 175 about a decade ago. He was married to a family friend. We met during a ski trip to Colorado. He was a Marine pilot before going into the private sector. He was tall, in-shape and smart. An all around together guy. I have a hard time believing he would have given up the plane without a darn good reason - like being stabbed, as he was.


Fair enough?



[edit on 5-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join