Let's find a Level D Simulator, and re-create the 9/11 flights.

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Would 'skeptics' ever be satisfied??


I don't think it would help. Those who are so determined to 'believe', no matter what, in the concept of the most incredible imaginary scenarios....

...IF you simply showed them, on a video demonstration, how easy it would be for even unskilled "pilots" to hit the targets, in the way seen on 9/11, I doubt there would be anyone who sticks to their imagined "beliefs" who would be convinced...

I have often thought it would be a plausible project...and fun, too...to mount an ATS effort to SHOW, with video, and with selected ATS members, in a proper Simulator, flying into the various "targets" of 9/11, and then uploading it to ATS Media, for all to see.....

HOWEVER...it is not cheap.

AND....there are certain individuals who will NEVER change their minds, in any event, so the cost would be wasted, it would seem.

Is this a fair assessment????



[edit on 10 October 2009 by weedwhacker]




posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You got to check out the pentagon first, the data takes you over the building not into it..

Its been done haundreds of times by the Pilots for 911 Truth. just check these high flyers out... they have nit picked the data to a point - R U Nutz. Uncle Sam...? there is that many issues, they are questioning the sanity of Uncle Sam for even suggesting these were hijacked planes. but check it out for yourself.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Anti-Evil]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
if i could hit the pentagon in a 10G dive and not hit the lawn, i would be satisfied that it's possible in a simulator.
however, no one can remain conscious in 10G's, and that still wouldn't explain the lack of wings and tail outside the building.
it also wouldn't explain how the plane flew north of citgo, but knocked down poles south of citgo.
it would not explain lloyd the cab driver's changing testimony, nor the lack of sufficient appropriate damage to his car.
it would not explain norman mineta's testimony.
it would not explain how there could be so many drills mimicking the exact scenario that was being played out, why they didn't shut down the drills INSTANTLY and "go live".
it would not explain why rice said no one expected this could happen, when they were running drills that very day which "expected" it to happen.

in fact, it wouldn't really explain much, other than maybe it is possible to use a flight simulator to run into a virtual building.

don't get me wrong, i'd love to try it myself. that would convince me more than anything of how easy or difficult it is.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


well, lie one didn't work so they claimed it ended up in the basement. but when you look at the photo's the slab (*No Basement) is in christine condition. and if the plane got vaporized - how come we have body's but no plane. - enemies are within - sigh~



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You have been on this forum for 2 years now weedwhacker.

How often have you read that the hijackers are still alive?
How often that marvin bush was the head of WTC Security?
etc..

If it doesn't support the story, it didn't happen.
that's the sad truth.

just out of curiousity: How much is not cheap in this case?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Would the level-D simulation show how two jet impacts could bring down 3 buildings, on their own?

Would it show how a plane literally disappeared, or as some claim, was 'swallowed by the earth' in a field?

It would be an interesting experiment, but it would come far short of explaining many of the curiouser events of that fateful day. There are many who believe the planes were indeed hijacked by under-trained jihadists, but the effects of their attempts were maximized by 'outside interference'. There are others of course that believe the planes were remotely guided, and even others that believe there were no planes at all.

The argument over whether or not an inexperienced pilot could fly a jetliner into a skyscraper is only ONE of the many unexplained incidents on 9/11. While I would be willing to give it a shot (I've only had limited experience flying small planes, probably similar to what the hijackers had), I don't think it would settle much for me, or others, even if I was able to successfully hit all 3 targets.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 



just out of curiousity: How much is not cheap in this case?


There is a company operating in the UK. Just for their "2-hour experience", it is UGB 1094. That's close to $2000 USD, depending on exchange rates.

I'm going to assume that the "2-hours" is Sim time, and that the cost involves some pre- and post-briefing...

I'd suggest that I would do much of the pre-brief, IF we could use one of their training rooms with visual aids... usually these rooms have full-sized photos of the cockpits, showing the overhead panels, the center pedestal, the forward panels and so forth...it would be sufficient, and approximate, to what the hijackers may have experienced as part of their introduction to the B757/767 cockpits....



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 



There are many who believe the planes were indeed hijacked by under-trained jihadists...


Ermmm...that is the POINT of this idea...to show that even, with minimal guidance and experience, a representative cross-section of ATS members could ALSO fly the simulators into the targets.

ALSO, we would have...well, ME...and a few other ATS members who are also accomplished airline pilots, to compare.


There are others of course that believe the planes were remotely guided


There is a thread on THAT already, and it is a silly notion, as I've attempted to explain...



...and even others that believe there were no planes at all.


I would have thought that we've grown beyond even THAT stupid idea, by now....



[edit on 10 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by drwizardphd
 



There are many who believe the planes were indeed hijacked by under-trained jihadists...


Ermmm...that is the POINT of this idea...to show that even, with minimal guidance and experience, a representative cross-section of ATS members could ALSO fly the simulators into the targets.


Indeed, I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say.

There are many "truthers" who would agree with you that under-trained pilots could fly jets into the buildings. That is not entirely unbelievable.

The effects of those impacts, as well as numerous other occurrences on 9/11, are what many of the "truthers" find difficult to swallow.

As a relatively under-trained pilot myself, I would have to say that I believe, with some degree of confidence, in a simulation setting I would be able to hit at least one of the targets. Possibly all of them. That alone would not answer a fraction of the questions I personally hold about 9/11. Most people, including myself, do not doubt that planes hit the towers on 9/11. What we do doubt, is everything that surrounded the impacts.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


that would be a great idea. Especially for the Pentagon Flight. Number 77. Some of what I have seen, shows the plane doing amazing things, It would be great to see if the plane could do them. Do you know the official flight plan as per the DFDR?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


Well, I wish the self-proclaimed "truthers" would all get together, and stick to one story!!!


Most people, including myself, do not doubt that planes hit the towers on 9/11.


A simple perusal of many, many, many threads in the 9/11 forum right here on ATS will show that you characterization of "Most people" might be a slight exaggeration, in your above statement.



What we do doubt, is everything that surrounded the impacts.


hence, the incredible amount of implausible "alternative scenarios" that keep cropping up....not the topic of this particular thread, of course...so let's not dwell on it here.

Except.....to say, since there were NEVER any other comparable events to compare to, ALL of the baloney speak about the "everything that surrounds the impacts" is just that....lunchmeat, usually packaged in plastic, and shrink-wrapped --- with any semblance of logic and reasoning sucked out, so that someone can come along later, open it, and eat it up with little thought as to its origins.....or possible consequences of ingestion....

HOW HARD is it firstly to just ascertain, from the get-go, three commandeered commercial passenger jets hitting three buildings???

We have to start somewhere, to cut through all the lunchmeat...right??

All the rest is a distraction, and is, frankly, sad sometimes in its desperation...for attention.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
2 grand is nothing, if it proves some points......

but as its been said before, the 9/11 pilots for truth have done it!



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   


Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing...

Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off

Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world's most heavily defended building...

all without a single shot being fired or ruining the nicely mowed lawn



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


You see??? More of the BS propaganda, which are just lies and innunedo...so , so sad.


Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school


That sentence there...first, makes NO SENSE in any way, to any pilot...and also is in any event a factual LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!

The guy wanted to RENT, from a place that didn't know him. This is not uncommon, BUT it's not the same as renting from Hertz!!! If you can't understand why that is different, then you simply have no knowledge of the circumstances, and are only repeating nonsense.

He had ALREADY been granted a license....so your sentence is doubly incorrect.



Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off


BULL!!!!!! Even this as you say "inexperienced" pilot knew that when he first spotted the Pentagon, from the altitude and position he was at, he was NOT going to be able to hit it the way they had planned, UNTIL he had lost altitude and made a low, high-speed attack run. THAT was their strategy, that day. ALSO, at the point shown in the video you seem to get you misinformation from, the one by "Johndoexlc", or whatever...from 8000 feet, and simply pusing over from there straight down? Well...he MIGHT have hit the Pentagon, but he wasn't sure, so the descendig wide turn to line up lower was the best thing, in his mind. How hard is this to grasp????


Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world's most heavily defended building...


Oh, gosh!!!! "world's most heavily defended building" is a bunch of nonsense!!!! It's laughable!!!

Oh, BTW...it was more of a 330-degree turn...and yes some of it was in a descent....it wasn't a "spiral", it was a very normal turn, something you learn to do BEFORE YOU EVEN SOLO an airplane....


...all without a single shot being fired or ruining the nicely mowed lawn


Huh????? WHAT was supposed to be shooting at the airplane??? Archers from the local High School???

"nicely mowed lawn"?????? Man, you really need to get your facts straight.....you should actually TAKE A LOOK at real photos, and stop reading stupid websites that fill you brain with mush.....
__________________________________________________________

Oh...and Russ "Kip' Wittenberg?????

He is hardly a verifiable source. Once you pay attention to what he says, you can see he was misinformed BEFORE he made his stated opinions. Would be interesting to talk to him now, AFTER he's seen more and seen how he was misled......


[edit on 10 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


It might come to you as a suprise but I actually bought the official story at first. It took me months of digging to start accepting alternative scenarios...

For one the impact of a "plane" into a small target such as the pentagon seems too far fetched. Especially since people who were there described a plane flying OVER THE PENTAGON just before *something else* slammed the wing that was under construction.

Oddly enough, a day before 9-11, donald rumsfeld gave a press briefing stating that 2.3 trillion dollars of the pentagon budget was totally unaccounted for. The following day, a "plane"(or missile as rumsfeld admitted) directly impacted the area where all these relevant documents were allegedly held. Coincidence?

No bodies FROM THE PLANES where ever identified at the twin towers, pentagon or shanksville pa.

For at least 1 hour the alleged hijacked planes were flying at will while the military just stood by and did absolutely nothing!

Certified engineers claimed that jet fuel could not burn hot enough to melt steel! Further, workers at the wtc said they heard loud explosions after the plane impact. Some even said they saw people planting explosions the night before....

A lot of israeli-americans did not show up to work that day as though they knew something was going to happen.

Anomalous wall street trading that directly hinted to prior knowledge of the attacks.

2 wars, patriot act and department of homeland security immediately followed 9-11

Do you need more reasons to NOT BELIEVE the official story?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
If everyone in the USA chipped in a few dollars they might be able to afford a full scale test with real planes and steel reinforced buildings.

Task 1 - hit the buildings.

Task 2 - knock them down.

Id watch that on pay for view



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


There is little point in hashing out what you have repeated, in your post here....since it has already been shown to be false, from MANY, MANY sources here on ATS....

Guess I've pretty much answered the OP question....won't matter.

I could win the Lottery, and provide an all-expenses paid trip for a dozen ATS members, we could video the entire thing, show how even with minimal experience and preparation, the least-likely non-pilot could hit the buildings, then we could show the actual pilots doing the same thing....

And...IT WOULD ALL BE FOR NOTHING, because of the responses I've already seen, in just this short time.

We could build a machine and go back in time, and acually witness the entire event, and the people who saw it with their own eyes, as it actually happened, would STILL believe as they do today.

Tragic.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The "only" tragedy is that NWO will destroy america, europe and the rest of the world because a lot of people are still snoring away...


And your right a flight sim cannot prove anything because we already have enough info to know it was an inside job!

Nice try



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


you need to set back, calm down, and really think about things.

1: yes we truthers need to get our act together and stick to a story. that is not gonna happen though, because the answer is unknown. therefore you end up with as many "explanations" as there are people.

2: sure the average joe could aim the nose of an aircraft at a building and hit it. most of us play video games, and large planes like that are fairly easy to steer. that is not the point though. how can 2 planes take out 3 buildings? AND, explain to me how the crash itself vaporized office equipment such as copiers and computer monitors, but the passport makes it out?

3: i work in aviation, and even i know that the amount of push coming out of even smaller jet engines will cause damage to vehicles and blow objects of several hundred pounds around like ragdolls. the 330 degree turn and the descent are extraorinary because in order to do that you (like you said) have to have some sort of instrumental knowledge. the view point (as you already know as you stated you are an aviator) from a large cockpit like that at an angle in a decline is not the same as driving your compact around the block or doing a three point turn (which alot of "normal" people cant seem to do with ease).

i commend your desire to stand up and fight for what you consider to be truth, and its great to see you point out sensationalist exaggerations or creative wording. it still does not dillute the basic facts.

4 planes hit 3 buildings. three buildings collapse, but not all collapsed buildings were hit by planes. the buildings that collapsed all did so with near free fal velocity, so that if a man jumped off the top of the building, with air friction in a prone position, it would be a close race to see who hit the surface first, him or the roof.

you also stated that it is impossible for the planes to have been remotely controlled. (or improbable, or not likely... etc
but this is a common practice today with the military and the governments UAV program. whe have had drones for years, and have had the proven capability to remotely fly large passenger planes since the late 60's when america was trying to start a war with cuba.

the problem i see is that you are not so much against evidence, but you seem emotionally contracted to think that it would just be so derned hanus that it cant be true.

here is the abc news story about the american plan to kill civilians 4 and a half months BEFORE 9-11 in May of 2001.

dont take my word for it though, here is the PDF file of the actual documents outlining the idea of doin atrocious acts and blaming it on cuba to portray them as a threat to not only the US but other countries in an effort to mount war actions.

self educate



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


Well of course. If he had taken the easy route he would have put it straight into the offices of the Joint Chiefs. Why would he want to do that? Especially since the information on office locations was widely available on the net.

I've got it, maybe he was just following his TomTom and he missed his turn?





new topics
top topics
 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join