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.

 

low flyby

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
A kid off the street could fly as good as the terrorist did. I have flown with people in my jet (at least the tax payer jet) who never flew and they flew it better than the terrorist.

I have put kids in simulators who have never flown and they hit the WTC towers with wings level, ... No one has yet to point out one maneuver or flying feat the terrorist did on 9/11 that required flight training. This is why kids who have never flown can hop in a simulator and hit buildings. Any one who can try, could do it.


Then allow me to do so. These "kids" that hit the WTC in your simulators, did you start them off pointed towards the towers, or start them off 300 miles away, and tell them to navigate there as best they could?

How did they navigate? To use VOR and such requires SOME training. I *MIGHT* be able to do something like that, but only because I have flown a bunch of flight sims on the PC (probably 100+ hours, all told).

How did they navigate TO the towers? Most Cessnas used for beginning pilot training don't have sophisticated VOR/ILS/GPS equipment.




posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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?


The job of a terrorist (as if there is a job description) is to incite terror. The guy had some flight training and probably had a fancy setup in his living room to be absolutely sure he could pull it off, and he did. You just want somebody to agree with you that it was a hologram or missile or something other than a plane.

Your stuck with this idea that what has been looked at ad nauseum couldnt happen for a host of reasons.(turbulance, high flight speed, high alititude, inexperience, gremlins on the wings, etc) You have even had airline pilots who are qualified in this type of plane tell you that what occured is possible.

My point as far as the terrorist getting close is simple. He probably didnt even have to hit the Pentagon at all, just come close. A plane crashing within a stones throw of the Pentagon would catch as much attention as the damned thing hitting the building. He risked hitting terrain because he didnt care.

[edit on 4/14/2008 by DisInfo]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
In perhaps a PRO plane theory, they guy in the video above posted, was doing an air show and would very much like to make it home to wife and kids post event.........9/11 was a suicide mission....

Just playing devils advocate.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


sir_chancealot....seems you have some light airplane experience, based on what you wrote.

Guess what? So do I. AND I have two decades of airline jet experience to boot.

I have thousands of hours in the B757 and B767, am type-rated on both, along with the B737 and DC-9

You asked about tuning the VORs? Well, turns out, at least on the NTSB summary I printed out, the VOR on AAL77 was tuned to the DCA VOR.

But, of course, you know as well as I, that line-of-sight reception is limited, and 300 miles away, no way will the airplane receive the VOR...

Heck, in a little airplane, line-of-sight is even more limiting, since it's based on altitude.

What you need to know, and this is from the DFDR data recovered from AAL 77 and UAL 93, is these 'Arabs' knew how to operate the AutoFlight System, by inputting into the MCP, it's not that difficult, it's right up there, along the glareshield. They knew how to use the FMC, by typing into the CDU....

I could put you in a Simulator, and in one hour show you what to do. These jerks had money, and bought Sim time, and even if they couldn't turn a screwdirver before, they could be shown what to do. They weren't monkeys, they were humans, and although there is sometimes a great cultural divide, they wanted to know how to do it, because they had a desire to know.

Some of 'em could have been awful pilots in a 172 or an Archer, and they were certainly not the smartest monkeys from the tree, but, given their mission, they could at least pay attention and figure out the B757 and B767 cockpits.

BTW....anyone ever notice WHY they used those two airplanes, the B757 an B767? It is because they are similar...so similar, in fact, that when you are type-rated on one, it covers both. This simple fact seems to have lost in these discussions, because non-pilots don't realize it.

Thanks for your post....



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I am not now or in the past type rated in the 757. In fact, I've never been type rated in a large multiengine a/c. But there seems to be a mindset that certain things are "impossible" when in fact most of the things being questioned are fairly simple maneuvers. Especially when you've bought hours of sim time for the a/c in question.
If you're going to crash into a building, you don't care if the overheat alarm comes on. You don't care if "bitching Betty" tells you you've exceeded an imaginary level of bank put there for the comfort of your passengers not for Vmca or if your altitude is low. You don't care when you overload the a/c because no one is going to give you a reaming while the ground crew inspects the frame for cracks (incidentally, I see no reason to believe the pilot overloaded in the turn). You don't care if you hit a particular face or wing of the building. You don't have a problem seeing, identifying, or steering the pointy end of your airplane toward the building any more than you do on an approach to landing.
The argument is getting silly at this point. You have a type rated AC telling you the "impossible" is rather easy, so we event a new "impossible"



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Thanks, Del. You summed it up, in a lot less words than I tend to use.

Speaking of turning an airplane, for non-pilots out there, this is how it works: (I have no graphics, so am using words)

The wing produces lift, and it is always perpendicular to the span of the wing. Gravity is constant, and only 'pulls' in one direction, at all times.

The value of lift is variable, will depend on airspeed, and angle of attack (AOA). Faster airspeed, more lift. Higher AOA, more lift...but that darn devil shows up, and it's called drag. 'Induced' drag is atributed to increases in lift production, and 'parasitic' drag, well, that's just drag that comes from moving a solid through a fluid, such as air.

Now, the turn. An airplane 'turns' because the lift is deflected to one side when an airplane banks to either side. Think of it as centripetal force.

That is how an airplane changes course, there's more to it, but I'm keeping it as simple as I can.

The RADIUS of a turn will vary according to speed and angle of bank. Angle of Bank, in a sustained, level altitude turn, will cause varying G forces. 30 degrees, for instance, equals about 1.3 G. 60 degrees equals 2.0 G. (hint....you won't fly on a commercial airplane and experience a 60 degree angle of bank. In fact, 30 degrees is max, 25 degrees is 'standard')

Of course, we are talking about a sustained turn, at a level altitude.

If you are a suicidal terrorist, and don't give a wit about the airplane or the passengers, and just want to hit your target, then you aren't going to care about overheating or overspeeding the engines, of overspeeding the airframe!

AND, in a bank, while descending, a lot of altitude can be sacrificed without pulling Gs, because that's how aerodynamics work, when it comes to fixed-wing airplanes...



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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?


If I'm a terrorist bent on crashing a plane into the Pentagon or WhiteHouse and the absolute worst possible outcome is I crash early killing all aboard and making a mess in DC area, I'm not too worried about the worst case scenario when my maneuver has such a high chance of success anyway.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   
If I'm not mistaken, most light poles are frangible.

AND, once you aim a Boeing 757 at a target on the ground, if you are so inclined, then a silly light pole or two ain't gonna make much difference, given that said light pole(s) were clipped about less than a second before the real impact!!!

Thanks for your post.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   

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


The photos clearly show that you only see 1 side of the Pentagon clearly from a head on perspective from the plane.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AND, once you aim a Boeing 757 at a target on the ground, if you are so inclined, then a silly light pole or two ain't gonna make much difference, given that said light pole(s) were clipped about less than a second before the real impact!!!


But hitting the poles and generator make the plane miss the building and hit the ground not casing the damage wanted.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, only you have ever mentioned a generator.

If such a thing existed, then:

A) it would be near the building

B) if not near the building, then it would be generating for some other purpose, but in any event, would at least be in the parking area, near the building...

C) why would this matter, if the airplane was going 500 MPH? On a suicide mission??

Enquiring minds want to know....

WW

[edit on 4/15/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, only you have ever mentioned a generator.


Gee if you do not know about the generator trailer, you do not know much about what happened that day do you?

I wold go do some more research and read about the plane hitting the generator trailer which supposidly made the plane bank and hit the ground first (even though there is no sign of the plane hitting the ground from photos of the Pentagon)

It also probably casued the engine to break off that was found outside the Pentagon (the engine that cannot be matched to an RB211)

[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   



It also probably casued the engine to break off that was found outside the Pentagon (the engine that cannot be matched to an RB211)

Hello.

Could you please link proving that the engine could not be matched to an RB211?

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



It is quite obvious that you really dont have a clue what happened that day. Do you even know where the generator was located?

Perhaps these will help:

investigate911.bravehost.com...

investigate911.bravehost.com...

Now, if you are telling us a plane moving 500mph could not hit the building after the generator, then you need more help than can be provided on a public forum. How far does a plane travelling 500 mph in a second? In half a second? Sheer momentum alone would carry the plane into the building in that fraction of a second after impacting the trailer.

This is reality, not a video game where it would stop cold hitting a light pole, or generator.

Perhaps you should do more research before claiming to have facts.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
Could you please link proving that the engine could not be matched to an RB211?

Thanks.


Photo of an engine found outside Pentagon.

i22.photobucket.com...



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
double post

[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed


Will someone please ask Disclosed to stop misquoting me, i am tired of bringing it up almost every post.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed


Will someone please ask Disclosed to stop misquoting me, i am tired of bringing it up almost every post.


Please explain how I am mis-qquoting you? You did state that here:


Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But hitting the poles and generator make the plane miss the building and hit the ground not casing the damage wanted.


hitting the generator makes the plane miss the building.

Just posting your words....



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
hitting the generator makes the plane miss the building.

Just posting your words....


Yes, if you would do any research it would have caused it to hit the ground before hitting the building.

STOP THE LIES AND MISQUOTES.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes, if you would do any research it would have caused it to hit the ground before hitting the building.


Common sense says otherwise. In the diagrams shown earlier, the proximity of the generator to the building was very close. Striking the generator at 500mph would have little effect on forward momentum of the plane....and it would have struck the Pentagon a fraction of a second later.

Unless the laws of physics are somehow different around the Pentagon, and gravity is like 1 million times heavier between the generator and the building. Otherwise, you may need to actually do some research.

You are 100% wrong on this matter. Fact.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by Disclosed]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join