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.

 

Choice of Aircraft

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Why would you expect the military to be able to intercept any aircraft when they only had eight minutes prior notice?




posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Because by 9/11 the only 747s flying were international flights. Domestic 747s had almost completely stopped flying. International flights are under much more scrutiny than a domestic flight. Plus the more people on the plane, the more hijackers needed which is more risk for discovery.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
If you're going for a type-rating then the differences between a 757/767 (known as a "common-type" rated), and a 747 is significant, but if you're hijacking one, then the differences are slight. It's the systems that are different, not the way you operate them particularly (they even look similar).

I appreciate that domestic 747s are rarely flown in the US, but 747s flying long-haul are going to be pretty heavily loaded, and carry significantly more fuel (given the goal of the hijackers).

The Air Force had the time from the first report of a hijacked airline. If I was NORAD (or whoever deals with hijackings and intercepts) I would have got some jets in the air anyway.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
A 747 on a domestic route wouldn't have any more fuel than a 757/767. As for being the same cockpits that makes a huge difference. That way you train on one type, and no matter which one that particular airline flies on that particular flight you know how to fly it. It gives your plan much more flexibility.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 

I appreciate that domestic 747s are rarely flown in the US, but 747s flying long-haul are going to be pretty heavily loaded, and carry significantly more fuel (given the goal of the hijackers).
Remember that the hijackers took several surveillance flights that were cross country to prepare for the hijacks. Maybe they felt that taking international flights on 747s, that were more scrutinized than domestic flights, was an unnecessary risk, if they considered 747s at all.


The Air Force had the time from the first report of a hijacked airline. If I was NORAD (or whoever deals with hijackings and intercepts) I would have got some jets in the air anyway.
NEADS (NORAD) was first alerted at 8:38, the F-15s were airborne at 8:53. That's 15 minutes and they were on 15 minute alert that morning.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I think the reason is that the 767 planes are "fly-by-wire" meaning they are controlled by computers. They can easily be retrofitted for operation by remote control in order to impact the necessary floors with the required accuracy.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Excellent bait, that "we all know" business. Not as well set as your usual logic snare, though, I must say.

I thought your post on Flight 93 was pretty well laid out, and said as much. I really think when we stand on evidence without the snarky hyperbole, it's much more persuasive.

______________

Back on topic, OP I think you pose a good question. From what I've been able to guess, the weight distribution of larger planes is a much dicier thing to balance -- takes more skill, and I think it would also depend upon what was available for the terrorists to acquire training upon.

There are probably many variables in their choice..... things that, like my own guesses, are nothing more than that, guesses. I doubt any conclusive answers as to the choice of aircraft can be established, unless their handlers were to for whatever the reason, come forward. I don't see that happening. Still, it's a valid thread IMO, and questions we can bandy about, perhaps learn more about it in the process.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Wrong. Boeing didn't make a fly by wire aircraft until the 777. The 757/767 is mechanical/hydraulic.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You're right. It's not fly by wire. However it is very similar to the 707 that the towers were designed to withstand a hit from.


www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
NEADS (NORAD) was first alerted at 8:38, the F-15s were airborne at 8:53. That's 15 minutes and they were on 15 minute alert that morning.

The system utterly failed, Boone 870.

Four planes, free to do as they wished in US airspace from 8.14am until 10.03am.

Whether or not anyone believes in a conspiracy or what the truth is, no one can argue this fact. Who was sacked from their jobs for leaving US airspace wide-open to attack for almost two hours by four different planes?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

The system utterly failed, Boone 870.
You are right, the system did fail. That's the whole point. There was no 'NORAD stand down' as many claim. NORAD (the military) depended on the FAA to alert them about hijackings and they didn't, so you are wrong when you place blame on the military.


Four planes, free to do as they wished in US airspace from 8.14am until 10.03am. Whether or not anyone believes in a conspiracy or what the truth is, no one can argue this fact.
Again, you are right, but pointing out how much time passed between the first hijack and the crash of flight 93 doesn't stand up to scrutiny if you actually want to know why they were not intercepted in a timely manner.

For example, the controllers working flight 11 did not pass information up the chain of command until 8:28 because they were unsure if it really was a hijack. They went so far as to pull the recordings and listen to them again to verify their suspicions.


Who was sacked from their jobs for leaving US airspace wide-open to attack for almost two hours by four different planes?


Who should have been sacked and why? Please be specific.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Why would you expect the military to be able to intercept any aircraft when they only had eight minutes prior notice?


By whos timeline?

You do know that the NORAD timeline in the report to the 9/11 commission was proven to be phonyed right ? Or did you not do research on that yet?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
You are right, the system did fail.


When have you known the NORAD system to ever fail?

How many planes has NORAD failed to intercept in its history?

Also if it did fail why was no one punished for it?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


By whos timeline?
The 9/11 Commission's.


You do know that the NORAD timeline in the report to the 9/11 commission was proven to be phonyed right ? Or did you not do research on that yet?


I was aware of that. NORAD and the FAA testified during the first public hearing in 2003. Several commissioners noticed there inconsistencies and felt that they were being deceived, so they subpoenaed all relevant NORAD and FAA recordings. After they listened to all of the tapes and interviewed several more people, they brought all of the relevant people back and put them under oath.

Some commissioners still suspected deception because the timelines were so far off initially, that they recommended investigations. The investigations happened and no intent to deceive was found.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
The investigations happened and no intent to deceive was found.


Thats funny, why did NORAD phoney the times if it was not to decieve and make them look good?

Please answer the following questions.

When have you known the NORAD system to ever fail?

How many planes has NORAD failed to intercept in its history?

Also if it did fail why was no one punished for it?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
How many planes has NORAD failed to intercept in its history?


Several in exercises. The examples I could bring to the table with first hand knowledge would be necessarily ancient in origin. This was on scheduled exercises with fore-knowledge, so I imagine catching people napping isn't out of the realm of impossibility, particularly when no one knows what the hell is actually going on. Again, they would be relatively old examples, which you would probably dismiss anyway, but I suspect the nature of the beast hasn't changed much.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Several in exercises.


So are you saying 9/11 was an excercise?

So how many planes did they miss intercepting in real time events, not exercises?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
How many planes has NORAD failed to intercept in its history?

Several in exercises.

Let's take a big jump into the real world and answer the question again.

How many planes has NORAD failed to intercept in the real world?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Let's take a big jump into the real world and answer the question again.


Just proves my point that beleivers live in a fantasy world.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join