low flyby

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA, I've been offering on other threads, using my connections with my airline to possibly rent a Simulator, it would have to be a Level D Sim, with up-to-date daylight visuals, to once and for all put to rest the ability of pilots with only a few hundred hours, but at least a Commercial/Instrument license/rating, to fly these jets to their targets.

There is actually a current auction on Ebay, to benefit the American Cancer Society, so it is a 'donation'....but gives soem idea of the prices involved to rent a Simulator.

Earllier, I guessed at least $3000 an hour, and we would need two hours...maybe it's closer to $4000 per hour.

That sounds lilke a lot, but is really quite in line with my experience.

I suggested we have six ATS members participate (I would be the seventh, so it works out to just slightly over $1000 each, before travel and lodging). Reason I say six, plus myself, is we would have three in each one-hour session, and they'd get 20 minutes each. OK, I suggested to sit in the right seat for the whole session, so we could amortize the cost accordingly, that makes sense.

Simple math, it would cost me $2000, and then each participant $1000.

BTW, this Ebay auction is intended for charity....I thnk a real Sim is about $3000 per hour, but of course we have to allow for two Instructors salaries, at at least $280/hour as well.....

WW

WW, I wouldn't really bother. I am certain the end result will be, 'This simulator is not realistic enough you disinfo agent!!!1'.

If you do do it, just make sure it's all on film.

[edit on 13/4/2008 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz


Well, C0bzz

If I could get at least SIX members of ATS, who are able and willing to drop at least $1000 each, not a lot to ask???

Because, this has been suggested before, by a very well-respected, "not any more" former "Conspiracy Master"....

I won't go into the details, it is not relevant to this discussion....

EXCEPT...this person made a claim, about whether another person could fly an airplane into a building. Or, more specifically, whether a very inexperienced pilot (BTW, a pilot(s) who passed the FAA requirement to be 'Commercially ' Rated, and 'Instrument' rated) could somehow be taught to navigate...or even, actually know how to use the MCP to control the AutoPilot of a B767 or B757?! [gasp!]

It isn't that difficult, and even sand jockeys can be taught to do it!!

(See? I just used a common perjorative, in order to make a point. It is so easy to think, they can't figure it out, when they can!!!) AND, they could, and they DID!

WW

Hey, it's not like John Lear is a curse word around here... just change former to banned. He's on some other forums....

Thanks for the reply.

[edit on 13/4/2008 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz


yeah, C0bzz...I know, I know....been to the 'new' site, so let's keep it on the 'down low'?

WW

Originally posted by Disclosed
He aims at the building. He can see the roof, and more than one side...he just aims at the building.

Here are areial photos of the Pentagon at low level like Flight 77 coming in, can you see more then one side (head on to line a plane up with)?

www.globalsecurity.org...

www.mopo.de...

www1.whdh.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.visitingdc.com...

www.world-memorial.org...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, I've been offering on other threads, using my connections with my airline to possibly rent a Simulator, it would have to be a Level D Sim, with up-to-date daylight visuals, to once and for all put to rest the ability of pilots with only a few hundred hours,

Are you going to set it up with the infomration from the Flight 77 FDR?

What happens if people cannot do what Flight 77 did in just 1 try?

[edit on 13-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Here are areial photos of the Pentagon at low level like Flight 77 coming in, can you see more then one side (head on to line a plane up with)?

www.globalsecurity.org...

www.mopo.de...

www1.whdh.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.visitingdc.com...

www.world-memorial.org...

Thank you!

Your post proves exactly what we were saying....that you can see more than just one side. You can make out the shape of the entire building....and see more than one side.

Thanks again for proving what we were stating all along.

There is nothing inherently difficult about hitting a large building with a plane. It's just not that hard. He didn't have to line up on a particular side. It could be any given side. And he his flight path was not perpendicular to the side of the building at impact. He just wanted to hit the building. And he did.
All the simulator talk about this reminds me of the time (almost twenty years ago, how time flies) when it took me 17 attempts in a T-38 simulator to fly through the large open hanger without buying the farm in the process. The IP did it three times in a row without a hiccup just to prove a point -- Humility acheived!

Double Post -- Humility Achieved Pt II



[edit on 13-4-2008 by _Del_]

Originally posted by Disclosed
Your post proves exactly what we were saying.....

Please show me a photo that shows more then 1 side of the buidling HEAD ON THAT THE PLANE COULD HAVE LINED UP ON.

If you cannot then it will show who is right.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
Your post proves exactly what we were saying.....

Please show me a photo that shows more then 1 side of the buidling HEAD ON THAT THE PLANE COULD HAVE LINED UP ON.

Actually if you did any research at all, you would see that the plane did not hit the side of the building head on. It hit it at a slight angle (verified by the FDR too).

Please do some research before you post.

Thanks again for the pictures showing exactly what we have been saying all along.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Watch this youtube video weedwhacker. The relevant part is six minutes into the video.







[edit on 14-4-2008 by Boone 870]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weemadmental
why within one degree, he only had to aim at the building and hit it, he didnt have to hit a specific part of the building, only the building

Yes he did have to line up with 1 side of the building and had to worry about terrain.

Why would he care about the terrain or clipping the wings off stuff less than 200 ft from the building? Purposely crashing an airplane is similar in concept to horseshoes and hand grenades: You only have to get close to count.

Originally posted by Disclosed
Actually if you did any research at all, you would see that the plane did not hit the side of the building head on.

No, if you would read post you would see that i stated to show me on any of the photos i posted where you can see more the 1 side of the Pentagon at a time HEAD ON. I did not say the plane hit head on. You really should read post before posting.

Also the photos i posted support my OP and show that the pilot would have dilibertly aimed for 1 side of the building, which would have been a small target.

Originally posted by DisInfo
Why would he care about the terrain or clipping the wings off stuff less than 200 ft from the building?

But why would he take the chance of hitting terrain and not making the target?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Hey ULTIMA check out the video Boone provided, up above.

Might just rock your world?

WW

Originally posted by weedwhackerMight just rock your world?

Sorry i am still going with the FDR data from the NTSB, (unless you can prove it wrong). Which they did not use in the sim.

In the sim i did not see them hitting light poloes or hitting the generator trailer or a lot of things.

[edit on 14-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, if you would read post you would see that i stated to show me on any of the photos i posted where you can see more the 1 side of the Pentagon at a time HEAD ON.

What does a "head on" angle prove, since the plane didnt hit at a "head on" angle?

Your logic makes absolutely no sense at all.

Also the photos i posted support my OP and show that the pilot would have dilibertly aimed for 1 side of the building, which would have been a small target.

Actually your photos show quite the opposite. It shows that you can easily make out that the building is the Pentagon, and he could line up on the building with no difficulties at all.

Thanks again for posting info proving what we were stating

Originally posted by Disclosed
What does a "head on" angle prove, since the plane didnt hit at a "head on" angle?

Actually your photos show quite the opposite. It shows that you can easily make out that the building is the Pentagon, and he could line up on the building with no difficulties at all.

1. Maybe it does not make sense to you becasue i am not talking about the plane hitting at a head on angle. I am talking about the plane only hitting 1 side of the buidling becasue it could only see i side of the building HEAD ON.

2. I did not say you could not make the building as the Pentagon.

Why do you keep twisting and misquoting me? People have commented that you do twist and misquote me.



[edit on 14-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. Maybe it does not make sense to you becasue i am not talking about the plane hitting at a head on angle. I am talking about the plane only hitting 1 side of the buidling becasue it could only see i side of the building HEAD ON.

That doesnt even make sense. You arent talking about the plane hitting head on, you're talking abou the plane hitting the one side head on? You do know what head on means, correct?

I think you are twisting your own words around.

2. I did not say you could not make the building as the Pentagon.

So if you can make out the building as a Pentagon, you arent just seeing the one wall....correct?

Your pictures show that plainly. In each and every pic you linked, you could see more than one wall at the same time....proving that a plane coming into the building could see more than one wall.

Heck, look at your simulation again....how many walls can you see prior to impact.

Your own video proves you are mistaken.

[edit on 14-4-2008 by Disclosed]