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: 21
8
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Obviously, the opposition is completely unaware that when people present different points of view, they are taking opposition sides to promote their differing points of view aka opposing sides of argument.


Dude I'm just trying to understand you point. I'm not saying it is right or wrong.



Now the opposition has decided to play muddy the water to divide and conquer. Since John Lear also takes the view no alleged planes were involved, I seriously doubt John or anyone else taking the same view thinks humans were in the air flying without aircraft surrounding them.


I'm not sure I understand you here...

John's Theory is that there were no aircraft at all, or people in the air ( I thought the no people part was a given if there was no aircraft), and the mechanism for it to happen was advance alien technology in the form of extremely advance holograph that were capable to completely make the aircraft look real. To bring the towers down I do not remember exactly what he said it was, but it was also advance alien weaponry.

My question to you was, is your theory the same? You have never as far as I know stated anything about what you believe the scenario was.




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Then perhaps you should read what I just posted in a new discussion. It is not "alien" technology. It has been improved by the DOD and Pentagon to high sophistication since the 1950s. However, the theories were proved long before the 1950s by Einstein, Tesla, Planck and others.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Then perhaps you should read what I just posted in a new discussion. It is not "alien" technology. It has been improved by the DOD and Pentagon to high sophistication since the 1950s. However, the theories were proved long before the 1950s by Einstein, Tesla, Planck and others.


Ok so you believe there were no aircraft involved, right? That is really all I wanted to know. I wasn't sure how you thought it was all accomplished, but I do remember John's hypothesis on it. Maybe you should have a discussion with John about where the technonogy came from. That is one I will stay clear of.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Then perhaps you should read what I just posted in a new discussion. It is not "alien" technology. It has been improved by the DOD and Pentagon to high sophistication since the 1950s. However, the theories were proved long before the 1950s by Einstein, Tesla, Planck and others.


Obviously if you know this you must have evidence of it. Please post it. I'm a tech head and would love to see it. Thanks !! Greatly appreciated.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Thank you for your reply jfj, that is a great response to my question.

Xtrozero
You answer as if I am attacking...I am not. i was just wondering what the reaction of you all would be if the pilots failed the experiment. It was an honset question. As for me, if there was a high enough success rate, then yes I would be willing to adjust my view and admit that they could have done it. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


I should point out also that to make the experiment more valid, we should try and replicate everything as much as possible such as using someone with similar claimed training. In any case, I think it'll be a fun experiment



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Then perhaps you should read what I just posted in a new discussion. It is not "alien" technology. It has been improved by the DOD and Pentagon to high sophistication since the 1950s. However, the theories were proved long before the 1950s by Einstein, Tesla, Planck and others.


Obviously if you know this you must have evidence of it. Please post it. I'm a tech head and would love to see it. Thanks !! Greatly appreciated.


Please read what I stated which you cited. I stated I already posted it in a new discusssion. Then you tell me to post it again.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I totally agree. If this gets put together this will lead this discussion into another direction, and possibly help put some more pieces together. I appreciate your open mind on the subject. I also love to read the battle between you and my buddy Orion.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


I should point out also that to make the experiment more valid, we should try and replicate everything as much as possible such as using someone with similar claimed training. In any case, I think it'll be a fun experiment


So now you want it all replicated according to the "official" reports. Complete with unproved claims any hijackers had any effective training in flying, including advanced flight simulation training. Before you insisted anyone could accomplish anything in a real plane just with the use of flight simulator training. And could accomplish that even if they had no English comprehension skills for training taught in English.

Your side has the opportunity to attempt to prove a simulator is as good as the real thing. None of your side has stated they will accept the opportunity to attempt to prove it. Now you want it all replicated according to unproved claims in the "official" reports.

What happened to a flight simulator is as good as the real thing? That has been your side's complete subjective contention. Now you completely changed course. Does that mean you are through insisting a flight simulator is as good as training in the real thing, particularly when taught in English to students with no English comprehension skills?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Then perhaps you should read what I just posted in a new discussion. It is not "alien" technology. It has been improved by the DOD and Pentagon to high sophistication since the 1950s. However, the theories were proved long before the 1950s by Einstein, Tesla, Planck and others.


Obviously if you know this you must have evidence of it. Please post it. I'm a tech head and would love to see it. Thanks !! Greatly appreciated.


Please read what I stated which you cited. I stated I already posted it in a new discusssion. Then you tell me to post it again.


Thats great !! You posted in a new discussion !!! excellent !!! You know what my next question is ??? What new discussion? Do you mean a new thread?? IF so, what new thread?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
reply to post by jfj123
 


I totally agree. If this gets put together this will lead this discussion into another direction, and possibly help put some more pieces together.

I'm honestly excited no matter how it turns out.


I appreciate your open mind on the subject.

No problem. The only side I'm loyal to is to the truth.


I also love to read the battle between you and my buddy Orion.

It's funny as hell, isn't it???




posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Yeah it is funny! Orion is a smart person, there is no doubt in my mind about it. Same with you! You are both strong to your points of view, so its good to see a healthy debate



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Thats great !! You posted in a new discussion !!! excellent !!! You know what my next question is ??? What new discussion? Do you mean a new thread?? IF so, what new thread?


This one: "Is holography currently available for use and misuse?"

Discussion/thread - same thing.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I haven't chimed in for a while, but here goes...

To fairly and accurately 're-create' the flight, it should start from FL350 at Mach .78 to .80 with the autopilot engaged. The Sim should be at the approx GWT based on a B767-200 with a light payload and fueled for a transcon...

The Overspeed Warning in the B767 is quite loud, it is not a 'clacker' as in the older Boeings, it is a Hi-Low siren sound (you can hear it in the YouTube video when they are re-positioning the Sim for the second landing). BTW, it is the same sound used for the Master Warning system...basically red lights (fire, A/P disconnect, etc)...

Now, I don't know why anyone would start 20 miles out at 800 feet to try to hit a target that you can't see yet!! On a beautiful, clear and sunny morning like 9 Sept 2001 it would be a matter of getting down from, say, 5000 feet to 800 for just the last few miles...even from five miles the Towers were very easy to see. One more idea...since we may assume a low-time pilot (300 - 600 hours) might not know to use the 'pickle' switches on the control wheel for elevator trim, let's handicap in favor of the Theorists and not allow any Elev Trim inputs...let it stay where it was at cruise altitude. Finally, there is no reason to be flying the darn thing at max throttle for the whole way...



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
reply to post by jfj123
 


Yeah it is funny! Orion is a smart person, there is no doubt in my mind about it. Same with you! You are both strong to your points of view, so its good to see a healthy debate



I'm not sure if the hologram idea interests you but orionstar opened a new thread about that subject. Here's the link.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Yeah but Orion likes to argue. I am not sure if he/she believes the holograms theory. Orion are you out there?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


Holography is definitely a reality. That is part of laser technology which has existed in reality for many years. Hollywood uses it all the time as do magicians in their most succesful acts. No one can tell the difference between reality and illusion. Until, they try touch illusion.

I do not enjoy arguing for the sake of argument. In fact, if married couples approached arguing as I do, there would, in most probablity, not be as many divorces as have increasingly risen over time.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


Holography is definitely a reality.

YES

That is part of laser technology which has existed in reality for many years.

YES

Hollywood uses it all the time

NO

as do magicians in their most succesful acts.

NO

No one can tell the difference between reality and illusion.

Yes they can.


Until, they try touch illusion.

Science fiction



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Sorry, Orion,

I can't buy into it.

If you are trying to say that the hologram technology used by magicians, or even Disney, is anything close to what would be needed to 'fake' a Boeing 767 (twice) into a skyscraper...including, BTW, sound effects...then you simply have to provide a reference to back it up.

You used the acronym 'DEW' in an earlier post...know what it means?

IF you answer that last question, then your credibility goes way up...uh oh! I just realized, you can google the answer...oops.

Seriously...if that kind of holographic projection technology existed, it would be as good as what we see on Star Trek....a hologrphic image, with sound, and mass so as to cause damage to a building. Images captured on many cameras, seen by many witnesses...all flawlessly accomplished?

BUT...timed apart...??? Why? Why not have the two hits on the Towers be closer together, in time. Why the two different directions, the two different heights of the hits, the two different debris scatter patterns???

WHY did the Tower that was hit second, but lower (UA175) begin to collapse first? Could it have been the WEIGHT of the structure above?

AND, why did the collapse not start immediately after impact?

My opinion...Atta, in the AA11, thought that a hit nearer the top of the Tower would cause it to topple, thus causing greater devastation. This is only my guess, based on having watched this crime unfold. By the time the (perp) in UA175 got there, he was just barely able to bank hard enough to hit the building...he needed to bank the airplane to almost 45 degrees in the turn...he actually over-corrected, but the damage was done.

Point is, they probably (incorrectly, we now know) thought that they might be intercepted and shot down. They were fanatical, and full of adrenaline.

I've asked a lot of questions, and expect the flak will start coming my way now...so, bring it on...



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

Then perhaps you should read what I just posted in a new discussion. It is not "alien" technology. It has been improved by the DOD and Pentagon to high sophistication since the 1950s. However, the theories were proved long before the 1950s by Einstein, Tesla, Planck and others.


This is actually an area of my expertise from my past life so I can speak to the camouflage / holography / illusion thing.

What you see in the biggest budget, best SFX films from the over the top overblown end of Hollywood is roughly as good as it gets for the West's military. A sort of invisible tank in the UK, sort of invisible aircraft, sort of silent vehicles and aircraft, inflatable totally lifelike models (ILMDs) and crap like that. Some of it is stunning, some of it is ludicrous. The deception warfare stuff is amazing- inflatable tanks with plastic and cardboard inserts etc. likewise for faking whole towns including people. But at the end of the day, it is basically equivalent to movie effects. CGI put onto news footage? Possible but it wouldn't be flawless. Never is. Holographic planes? Please. Optical physics notwithstanding, where is the shimmer? And where are the projectors? And where is the power source? And where are the after effects?

And real DEW research is not quite Star Trek style- buildings are needed, and big rails, whole units of the army. And so on.

Check the GAO files online. Not enough money in the world to pull that one off. And especially when there's cheaper alternatives.

The rarefied silliness is distracting from the real nuts and bolts issues of 9/11.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join