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 Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

page: 14
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by immedicated
 


well people find this stuff extremely interesting. I am one of them. If I want to spent time on lunch or breaks at work to check stuff out, then who cares? Its not like I am wasting my life like you seem to think.





posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ancrom
they did have training they spent many hours in the flight simulator
the instructors thought it strange that they practiced flying but
never practiced takeoffs or landings
but that is what coverups are for


Would you please cite your source on that? Because from what has been presented as interviews with alleged flight instructors, that is in complete opposition to what they reported, concerning any alleged hijackers taking any alleged flight training in flight simulators or real Cessnas. Alleged hijackers all flunked out of commercial jetliner flight simulation, during the earliest video arcade portion of flight simulation.

The video arcade version of flight simulation, in flight schools, is computer simulated take-off and landing, where there is simulated visibility through simulated windows of computer programs. They could not pass that. "Hani" was reported failed, because he had little to no comprehension of English, as also reported by an alleged flight school instructor, during video arcade simulation portion of computer generated flight simulation.

All alleged hijackers failed to be able to circle a field in a Cessna, on a clear, calm day with an instructor, much less practice take off and land with or without a flight instructor present in any Cessna. "Hani" is reported to be incapable of passing the written test, written in English, during Cessna flight training. Miserably failed the instructor training for actual flying of a Cessna.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
What is it about not being unable to speak the language in which something is taught, results in no one can pass the courses being taught under those circumstances, don't some people appear to comprehend?

Or is just plain deliberately choosing to ignore because it once again refutes the "official" reports?


Please post proof that they could not read, write or speak english. Just to be very clear, provide PROOF that they could not read, write or speak english.

Have you ever ridden in a cab before? Ever try to tell the driver where to go but had a horrific time communicating? Yet he/she has a drivers license


Ever call Microsoft and try to talk to technical support?

Many people can read, write and speak english JUST good enough to be passable by law or regulation.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
yeah but I would think that getting messages from the control tower, communication is a must. Then again you do have pilots flying from all over the world. I would think they have people that speak different languages in the control towers.... I dont know, that is a decent point.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


You are comparing apples and oranges.

No I'm not.


People can be bi-lingual, and you would never know it if you are not around them when they speak and write English.

Typically, any person that is bi-lingual has a native language which they speak more fluently. They carry inflections and accents from their native language unless they specifically train themselves not to usually via a voice coach.


If they do not speak English, and have not made a great deal of effort to learn proficient English comprehension, they will not be surviving without a translator with them 24/7.

This is simply not true. There are many people who speak little or no english and survive in the US with varying levels of help. I know this for sure as my grandmother came from Hungary and spoke and comprehended almost no english. In addition, I work in the construction industry and run into this EVERY DAY!!!!


Not in the US will they be surviving of their own volition, IF they have not become proficient in American English.

This statement is false. There are many people who live in the US and can barely speak english and are far from proficient.


That is a fact.

Actually this statement is completely false and should never have been made without the ability to back it up on any level.


Ever been to a foreign country and not speak the language?

Several of my friends have traveled abroad and didn't speak a lick of spanish, italian and french.
Also my grandmother lived in the US for MANY years.


I have which is why I know that is true, as does everyone else doing the same.

NOPE.


They do have automobiles in foreign countries. However, driving a ground vehicle and flying a commercial jetliner are not comparable. They also have flight schools in their own countries. Why did they need to come to the US for flight training, when they could have gotten it in their own homelands instructed in their own native languages?

Why ask me? Why not ask the investigators??? or Al Queda ???


Then some alleged hijackers spent so much time making spectacles of themselves, by announcing to flight instructors they were planning on running commercial jetliners into US buildings

Please prove this claim.


, among other incidents reported by US bureaucrats. Then making spectacles of themselves at Logan, by becoming belligerant shortly before boarding the alleged planes they planned on allegedly hijacking.

Yes this is a rare occurance. Someone being belligerent before boarding an airplane
Come on.


How ridiculous to even think that would happen.

There are cranky air line customers every day.


If they were so stupid to do all that, why would anyone think they were bright enough to carry off all that alleged successful hijacking scheme?


They were low level, expendable morons. Their bosses were the ones that planned it.

[edit on 17-1-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
I did a search and was not able to find this article discussed. I think that it raises some red flags to one that would believe the official story. Its a great read and I think its very important to the investigation of a truther.

www.lookingglassnews.org...

What is so difficult about flying a heavy jet versus a Cessna 172 if you are not going to land it?

2 throttles instead of 1. Not any more difficult than 1, especially if you don't plan on slowing down?

The targets, the WTC towers, the Pentagon, (and White House or Congress) are all much wider targets than a typical runway.

The article was obviously written by someone with no flight experience.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by CharlesMartel
 


Ever piloted a commercial jetliner or flown in one in any capacity, under any and all atmospheric conditions, subject to change in a moment's notice, plus, paid attention to what the plane was doing while flying?

If so, then you should be able to answer you own question as to the impossibility of anyone hitting a target, even one as big as a twin tower, without any flight time in the air with a commercial jetliner, particularly over NYC, with or without an instructor.

It becomes even more impossible, when someone cannot understand English instructions, during the most basic of training in a commercial jetliner flight simulator. How would they begin to know the difference between a transponder and an altimeter, if they cannot understand the English instructions given to explain it to them? How would they know the purpose of each instrument and gauge to control any airplane under those conditions?



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
If you do not know that, then you have no business promoting something you do not comprehend, such as the prinicples of aerodynamics and differences in use of same by construction of the physical matter.


You are the one that started all this promotion of these prinicples of aerodynamics and it is clear you do not understand them, so why is it you can do it and others can't?



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Ever piloted a commercial jetliner or flown in one in any capacity, under any and all atmospheric conditions, subject to change in a moment's notice, plus, paid attention to what the plane was doing while flying?


What does this mean? And what are these changes in atmospheric conditions at a moment’s notice? Do you not realize that pilots sit up there cruising half asleep most of the time from shear boredom?

What you fail to realize is the plane with enough speed flies itself. Neither it nor the pilots need to know a thing about aerodynamics. What the pilots do is control the plane’s speed, direction and altitude, and all the flying just happens.

Orion,

I have a question that maybe you can answer. What hit those poles if not a jetliner? Whatever it was it needed to be big. I do not see a cruise missile doing it and surviving the impact, plus they are kind of narrow with not much in the form of wings.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
What atmospheric conditions? You are not familiar with the conditions real planes fly through all the time? Of course, that would not be realized in a computer generated flight simulator that never leaves the ground, but might be subjected to an earthquake or tremor now and then.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by CharlesMartel
 


Ever piloted a commercial jetliner or flown in one in any capacity, under any and all atmospheric conditions, subject to change in a moment's notice, plus, paid attention to what the plane was doing while flying?

If so, then you should be able to answer you own question as to the impossibility of anyone hitting a target, even one as big as a twin tower, without any flight time in the air with a commercial jetliner, particularly over NYC, with or without an instructor.

It becomes even more impossible, when someone cannot understand English instructions, during the most basic of training in a commercial jetliner flight simulator. How would they begin to know the difference between a transponder and an altimeter, if they cannot understand the English instructions given to explain it to them? How would they know the purpose of each instrument and gauge to control any airplane under those conditions?


Sorry for pulling the full quote...

Orion, I am sorry you still do not understand what we, who are pilots, have been telling you over and over.

Did you not see MY post about teaching a Japanese pilot? We had a translator in the rear seat of the Beech TravelAire...it is a B-95, if you care to look it up. Yes, in this case, he was getting a multi-engine rating added on to his...FAA license!! Yes, he had an FAA license and an equivalent Japan license. We knew, though, that it was cheaper to learn to fly in the US than in Japan...his intent was to go home and get hired at JAL. Yes, he could read and speak English, with a heavy accent. The translator was there just in case there was a word that needed clarification.

The Japanese take flight training VERY seriously. When getting him accustomed to the airplane, we were practicing stalls...it was startling to hear him shout, when the stall warning horn came on, 'Stall S@*#@...'!!

( I never knew the second word, it is 'warning' in Japanese ).

Apparently it is how they are trained...it is overkill, but hey! It starts a good habit for multi-crew airplane operations.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   
I must, at this point, invite all who have been reading along to re-visit page ten.

Very good images to point out that reading the instrumentation in an airplane's cockpit is not that difficult, once you understand what you're seeing, and you know how to interpret it.

Yes, at first glance, for the uninitiated, it can seem overwhelming. Perhaps the first time you learned to drive a car, you felt intimidated. Practice, and experience make a difference.

Now, if you know the basics of how to fly...and, mind you, four of these Saudis had Commercial licenses...but even if you only know the basics, 'stick and rudder' we call it...in reality, you don't even need the rudder on a commercial jet, unless you are taking off or landing in a cross wind...or you lose an engine...none of which confronted these guys....

When we teach people to fly, they are surprised (it happened today, to Prince Willliam) when the Instructor tells you to pull over, and he gets out and tells you to go around the pattern solo. It is a rite of passage...

This usually will happen within the first ten hours...amazing, ain't it?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:21 AM
link   
I'd just like to take a moment to thank all you guys with real professional experience for sharing your knowledge with us here


You've gone out of your way to dispel misconceived ideas of the principles, physics & technology of flying large multi-engine aircraft and I'm certain it's not lost on all readers.

My only cockpit experience has been at an 'introductory' type level in small single engine aircraft which I thought were very 'twitchy' in response to variations in low level air currents at lower speeds. Much larger aircraft would be more stable simply due to the inertia of their mass and therefore 'easier' to fly if we rule out landing and taking off - is this a correct assumption?

Planes don't actually speak english do they?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:50 AM
link   


Much larger aircraft would be more stable simply due to the inertia of their mass and therefore 'easier' to fly if we rule out landing and taking off - is this a correct assumption?


That's correct, a large aircraft is way more stable to fly than a smaller one, but need more space to manoeuvre due to it's size.




Planes don't actually speak english do they?


Actually most mid sized and big jets do speak English, some of them are quite impolite as well calling the pilot a "retard" on every landing.


www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Thats BS(this thread) just about anyone can fly one of these big birds nowadays..all you need is some rudimentary flight knowledge and know how to use the auto-pilot switch....you cant be serious!

Christ sake how many more 'patriotic' American's will go well out of their way to empathize with the enemy, you should be ashamed. Fact is a plane load of desert dwelling scumbags killed your countrymen.....doesn't that bother anyone?

Seems Americans have indeed 'lost their way' and their 'fire' and become the soft pieces of crap the rest of world says we are.

shameful post.

Sport the War/War Support!

and forum moderators, this is not meant as an attack on anyone or otherwise insulting, im just SO sick of the weak natured recourse people are taking lately and not having any desire to defend freedom or fight for what we believe in.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by blueyedevil666]

[edit on 18-1-2008 by blueyedevil666]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by blueyedevil666
 


Its called investigating 9-11 and using all the tools available to us to have an open discussion about all possiblities. Shameful? The only thing thats shameful is a war monger.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


im still confused on whats to investigate? at what point did anyone decide to deride the USA and side with the terrorists on this subject?

> towers indeed buckled prior to collapsing, many films of this exist on youtube, no pyrotechnics were used as suggested

> the terrorists in question were seen at the airports registered with passports and boarded the planes

> the poor victims on the planes called loved ones repeatedly describing the events while it occured

what more do you need? I mean at what point do we just settle on the fact that these people killed our people for nothing more than martyrdom?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by blueyedevil666
 



I understand your point completely. I also understand the other side. There are people out there that will take what you have said and find supposed flaws, and point our facts that contradict that. If there are facts to prove both sides, then we dont have anything except a jumbled mess. I would love to have the faith that you have regarding the series of events. Unfortunately for me there are things that dont add up, and I am not satisfied with the official story.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


ya you keep looking in the wrong direction dude...while they have the room to plan even more attacks throughout the free world, thats a good move.

I only hope that no "terrorist sympathizer/anti-usa policy" families wind up on the wrong end of whats up...tough way to learn the truth.

anyway good luck with that conspiracy theory....crime scenes been swept clean years ago...have fun.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by blueyedevil666]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueyedevil666
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


im still confused on whats to investigate? at what point did anyone decide to deride the USA and side with the terrorists on this subject?


Well, in the words of Hermann Goering and mimicked by Karl Rove many, many times:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join