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: 28
8
<< 25  26  27   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I don't buy the story of supposed "terrorists" flying planes into buildings so precisely. There's no way they would have had the experience flying to do so. I also don't believe that there were any terrorist on the day of 9-11. Normally if something actually happened you don't question the official story but since the official story has cover ups and falsifications then the official story needs to show the proof.




posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker911
I don't buy the story of supposed "terrorists" flying planes into buildings so precisely. There's no way they would have had the experience flying to do so. I also don't believe that there were any terrorist on the day of 9-11. Normally if something actually happened you don't question the official story but since the official story has cover ups and falsifications then the official story needs to show the proof.


Having received considerable flight training why do you suppose that crashing into very big buildings should be so difficult ?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker911
I don't buy the story of supposed "terrorists" flying planes into buildings so precisely. There's no way they would have had the experience flying to do so. I also don't believe that there were any terrorist on the day of 9-11. Normally if something actually happened you don't question the official story but since the official story has cover ups and falsifications then the official story needs to show the proof.


No, it doesn't work. You have to demonstrate your claims that the investigations and evidence are false.

It never ceases to amaze how 9/11 Truthers try everything in attempts to shift the burden of proof from their shoulders. It just doesn't work and never will.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseeker911
 


Realy? Do you have a special reason to believe this?


I don't buy the story of supposed "terrorists" flying planes into buildings so precisely. There's no way they would have had the experience flying to do so.


What if I sat you down, and explained to you how pilots line up with a runway, when they want to land the airplane.

Guess how WIDE a typical runway is? The 'standard' width, and most common, is 150 feet. You will occasionally find runways that are 200 feet wide.

How wide do you think the WTC Towers were? Or the one side of the Pentagon?

Also, do you know how long a typical final approach is? When we're talking big jets, and airline operations, we strive for a 'stabilized' approach concept. This is generally considered to be fully configured, gear and flaps, on or just slightly above target approach airspeed, by 1,000 feet above the runway touchdown zone elevation.

If you wish, you could do the math, but I'll help --- the rate of descent also should be LESS than 1,000 fpm, ideally about 700-800 fpm. Another math component to consider is the angle....typically three degrees from the horizontal, when you view from the side. AND, consider the final target speed, say 135-150 knots, good average.

The point where 1,000 feet above the TDZ intersects the three-degree glideslope angle is roughly three miles from the end of the runway.

BUT, in order to be "stable" by that point, you start well back...anywhere from five to even TWENTY miles out, depending on which way you're arriving, or how far downwind you've had to go, for other traffic as you are sequenced in turn.

AND, yes! WE CAN LINE UP with a runway, that is twenty miles out, and 150 feet wide! Of course, contant corrections are made, all the way in...and ther is usually some sort of electronic guidance to refer to, but even WITHOUT a localilzer, we can still do it by sight alone (assuming visibility is sufficient).

The ONLY difference between a typical final approach to a runway, and the 9/11 events (hitting buildings as a target) is the airspeed. BIG DEAL! Things happen faster at higher speeds, is all. We can see how UAL 175 needed to make a last-second correction...he was in process of refining his "aim" when he hit.

It really isn't much different than driving a car into a bridge abutment.

You can do it at ten MPH, or at full throttle. I think anyone who drives, knows how to steer and aim.

For a pilot, even a fairly low-time (and these guys had several hundred hours, not 'low' time at all) it is simply a matter of looking out the windshield, and steering. If the 'target' is moving left, or right, of center, in your field of view, you correct for it. It really is that basic.

Gosh, I'd have thought just about everybody with a computer must have played with MS Flight Simulator (or any similar program) at least once, by now.

Granted it IS somewhat more challenging, on the computer...small CRT screen, no sensory cues, feeble controls...not very realistic. BUT, doable.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


Adam and Jamie from mythbusters were able to fly a simulator of a large passenger plane, they had no chance landing but neither were the hijackers. They were just aiming towards the largest target on the horizon.



new topics

top topics
 
8
<< 25  26  27   >>

log in

join