Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


You mean this Hani Hanjour?




In 1996, Hanjour returned to the United States to pursue flight training,after being rejected by a Saudi flight school. He checked out flight schools in Florida, California, and Arizona; and he briefly started at a couple of them before returning to Saudi Arabia. In 1997, he returned to Florida and then, along with two friends, went back to Arizona and began his flight training there in earnest. After about three months, Hanjour was able to obtain his private pilot's license. Several more months of training yielded him a commercial pilot certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in April 1999.





Settling in Mesa, Hanjour began refresher training at his old school,Arizona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough.The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa.An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing.Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001






Shortly thereafter, Hanjour switched to Caldwell Flight Academy in Fairfield, New Jersey, where he rented small aircraft on several occasions during June and July. In one such instance on July 20, Hanjour--likely accompanied by Hazmi--rented a plane from Caldwell and took a practice flight from Fairfield to Gaithersburg, Maryland, a route that would have allowed them to fly near Washington, D.C. Other evidence suggests that Hanjour may even have returned to Arizona for flight simulator training earlier in June.



www.faqs.org...

Far from being a flight school dropout. He had a private and a commercial pilot's license and had completed at least the initial training course on multi-engine jets.




posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   


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?


Coincidence? No. BS? Yes. This has been debunked so many times that it is amazing that people still buy it. You can read about it here..

"Rumsfeld and the 2.3 trillion"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


sure, but being liscensed doesn not make the plane more destructive... as in, the amount of destruction done by these planes, 3 buildings, a hole in the pentagon, and that was from only 3 of the 4 hijacked, does not add up.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


Can you please point me to one thread that demonstrates that most people do NOT believe planes were involved. I am repeatedly amazed at how you can so boldly claim that most believe believe truthers are wrong when that suits you but suddenly now you have proof that those same 'most people' do not believe airplanes were used on that day? Please demonstrate that since you cannot demonstrate at all how a simulator would accurately recreate any of the actual circumstances of that day i.e. g forces.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by wx4caster
 


A fueled airliner at high speed makes for quite the bomb. You statement really does not make any sense of any kind.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by wx4caster
 


Allow me to examine your post, which I thank you in advance for...


3: i work in aviation


OK...right there a lot of my 'friends' on ATS also "work in aviation". That is a VERY broad description. I will come right and say it, not only do I work in aviation, I am a pilot, with thousands of hours of experience, not just on the B757/76 (on which I hold a Type Rating) but on a multitude of other airplanes, and NOT just Transport Category...(though the majority of my time IS in larger jets....)



...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...


You must be thinking, here, of static thrust scenarios...also known as "jet blast"....when a jet engine, as we're talking here, attached to a wing develops thrust...well, like Newton says, "Equal and Opposite Reaction"... if that's unclear, realize that IF you have a jet PARKED, and the engine throttled up and blasting out...OR, IF the jet is NOT parked, but still has the thrust from the engines blasting aft....well....the momentum of the blast is about to send one jet (one not parked) forward, eventually...the one parked....the friction of its weight against the pavement counteracts the thrust...so the energy has to go somewhere, right????

If any of this makes sense, then you're getting it. You are catching on to the mechanics of Newtonian Motion....

For an airplane that is already in flight...the propulsive force from the engines has already supplied a lot of the forward energy. Another source of momentum is gravity...ANY pilot who reads this will understand that concept.

SO...from a passing high-speed airlplane at low altitude??? Think of the wave of compression, of the air ahead of the object, and the resulting disturbance in the air as the object passes....IT IS TH BULK OF THE OBJECT that matters, NO the exhaust flow from the engines, in this case....




...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.


NO!! You just look out the _ Alright, part of the turn, you lose sight of your original point, of course...BUT, any pilot knows, at a fairly constant speed, and fairly constant bank angle, your radius of turn will stay fairly constant....allowing for any drift due to wind, of course....but winds were light...and the turn shown was quite normal, in many regards....

BUT, again, views out the forward windows, and the side windows (Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4) of the B757 are very good...it is a nice view, in the VFR conditions that day especially.


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 left that part in because a "3-point turn" is just not the same!!!!!

(for those who are not familiar, a '3-point turn' is an automotive term...it is really a TWO-DIMENSIONAL maneuver, involving turning the car, stopping, reversing and turnig and reversing again...as necessary to get you car pointing in a direction 180 degres from the start....in airplanes, we don't STOP, REVERSE, and CONTINUE like that...)



4 planes hit 3 buildings.


Huh???? Living in an alternate Universe, maybe??



...you also stated that it is impossible for the planes to have been remotely controlled. (or improbable, or not likely...


As far as the Boeing 757 and 767, yes...BECAUSE they could not have maneuvered as they did....OK....let's go with that, for the moment.

A "remote" pilot would not fell any g forces...he/she would onlyhave whatever instruments were there to guide them.

There would HAVE TO BE some sort of visual reference, for these "remote pilots"...NOT ONLY ALL of the various things to watch, on their instruments....but so, so many other things, to "PULL THIS OFF" perfectly.

BUT...the question that is never asked...WHY FOUR AIRPLANES???????

ONE is difficult enough...TWO would be phenomenal, and would have made enough if it were a "false flag" as suggested....BUT WHY FOUR?????!!!!

AND, WHY DID ONE "fail", if the intent was to have FOUR???? Don't you see yet?

IF none of you have ever flown out of Newark, then you have NO IDEA of the kinds of delays that develop there...for no apparent reason (well, I know why...but it's a long story).

Point is, the PLAN failed BECAUSE of United 93!!!! It had an excessive taxi delay prior to take off. This is not a mystery, it is FACT!!!!

Yet, people wish to believe these incredible and ridiculous conspiracies, instead of the most obvious simple truths...which anyone in the Airline business can explain, but instead we have morons who have no other lives who spin the most incredible yarns, from their minds as they sit n basements somewhere, and use the Internet to spin the nonsense.....



We 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.


NOT in the way seen on 9/11!!!!!!!

Trying to imagfine FOUR airplanes, all commercial jets that were known to have departed on normally scheduled flights, from their respective airports, and NO BODY has yet come forward, not ONE employee who was responsible for those flights --- and anyone who understands how airlines work knows there are a multitude of responsibilities for EACH flight....there are so many layers, and paperwork and documentation.....and PEOPLE who would, by NOW have said something!!! I mean, if there's money to be made...dontcha think SOMEONE would have come forward?????

Realize that a LOT of airlines have laid off people, in the last eight years...come on, THINK!!!! NO ONE has come forward???????



[edit on 10 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by wx4caster
 



4 planes hit 3 buildings.


Huh???? Living in an alternate Universe, maybe??




How many planes were hijacked and how many buildings were hit on your 9/11, WW?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



Can you please point me to one thread that demonstrates that most people do NOT believe planes were involved.


Serious? YOU ask this question????


Talk about deflection...

HEY!! How about just look at ANYTHING mr. CITRANKE writes, about how the pentagon explosion was an "INSIDE JOB" from bombs within....just look at ANYTHING spreston writes.....there are SO MANY examples right here on ATS....

Surely youaren;t playing a game here, are you Lilly????



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Oh, give me a break!!!!!

You know EXACTLY the context of that post, both mine and yours....don't try to play any more mind games, it's sickening.....



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale
 



Can you please point me to one thread that demonstrates that most people do NOT believe planes were involved.


Serious? YOU ask this question????


Talk about deflection...

HEY!! How about just look at ANYTHING mr. CITRANKE writes, about how the pentagon explosion was an "INSIDE JOB" from bombs within....just look at ANYTHING spreston writes.....there are SO MANY examples right here on ATS....

Surely youaren;t playing a game here, are you Lilly????


Those are examples of the Pentagon you are talking about. I do not believe a plane crashed into the Pentagon either. That is not most people believing no planes were involved on 9/11. By my count, that is 3 people claiming that 1 out of 4 planes did not exist as told. 3 is most? 3 people that actually do believe planes were involved, just not that one crashed into the pentagon. You are wrong and you did not provide any back up. Keep calling me sick if that makes you feel better but I am pretty sure it will be easy to prove that most people DO believe planes were involved on 9/11.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Oh, give me a break!!!!!

You know EXACTLY the context of that post, both mine and yours....don't try to play any more mind games, it's sickening.....


The context of that post is exactly as shown. I think you might have a slight problem understanding it because the context is all yours and someone else's. I had nothing to do with it. I posted it as is.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   


Allow me to examine your post, which I thank you in advance for...


thank you for being objective
i am always up for an educated debate, vice misinformed clamoring of not so understood facts in an effort to push personal oppinion





3: i work in aviation


OK...right there a lot of my 'friends' on ATS also "work in aviation". That is a VERY broad description. I will come right and say it, not only do I work in aviation


let me be more specific, i am an aviation meteorologist with over 8 years of aviation experience in forecasting for the US Navy. i have my bachelors in operational physics through mississippi gulf state. with experience in everything from the navy T-34 trainer to the C-130 to the C-9 flying all across the US and even F-18 and EA-6b support in the middle east.


You must be thinking, here, of static thrust scenarios...also known as "jet blast"....

and->

If any of this makes sense, then you're getting it. You are catching on to the mechanics of Newtonian Motion....

also you said:

For an airplane that is already in flight...the propulsive force from the engines has already supplied a lot of the forward energy. Another source of momentum is gravity...ANY pilot who reads this will understand that concept.

SO...from a passing high-speed airlplane at low altitude??? Think of the wave of compression, of the air ahead of the object, and the resulting disturbance in the air as the object passes....IT IS THE BULK OF THE OBJECT that matters, NOT the exhaust flow from the engines, in this case....


almost correct, however in newtonian physics there are more than just the 3rd law in play. also consider the rate of expansion of the air that is being heated from say 25ºC to upwards of 500ºC?

in open air at altitude the exhaust expansion would be spherical, at low altitude the area would be hemi-spherical and the area over wich propulsive force is distributed would be cut nearly in half.

there would most certainly be "jet blast" effects felt on the lawn and the nearby streets.


NO!! You just look out the _ Alright, part of the turn, you lose sight of your original point, of course...BUT, any pilot knows, at a fairly constant speed, and fairly constant bank angle, your radius of turn will stay fairly constant....allowing for any drift due to wind, of course....but winds were light...and the turn shown was quite normal, in many regards....


i agree, my point is that the turn was normal. your original post said average ATSer could do it. i do not agree that we could outside of the simulator. that is something that is oppinionated and un-provable, so we agree to disagree, or debate emotionally, up to you.


(for those who are not familiar, a '3-point turn' is an automotive term...it is really a TWO-DIMENSIONAL maneuver, involving turning the car, stopping, reversing and turnig and reversing again...as necessary to get you car pointing in a direction 180 degres from the start....in airplanes, we don't STOP, REVERSE, and CONTINUE like that...)


that is my point, if the a person has trouble with a 3-point turn, a 2-dimensional maneuver in a vehicle with nearly 360º vantage, how could the average person pull off a 3D complicated harmony of hydrolics with such precision? but again, that is oppinionated.






4 planes hit 3 buildings.


Huh???? Living in an alternate Universe, maybe??


no this one. Two planes hit two towers, in NYC. One plane hit the pentagon in DC. One plane crashed into a field in PA. Thats 4 planes and three buildings.

3 buildings collapsed, although WTC-7 suffered no direct impact, thats another thread i believe however.



There would HAVE TO BE some sort of visual reference, for these "remote pilots"...NOT ONLY ALL of the various things to watch, on their instruments....but so, so many other things, to "PULL THIS OFF" perfectly.


preadator pilots pull off complicated maneuvers and strikes via UAVs remotely controlled by operators hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles away from thier unit from computer screens and joysticks inside connex boxes, and they do it every day. this is not a stretch of the imagination.


BUT...the question that is never asked...WHY FOUR AIRPLANES???????

ONE is difficult enough...TWO would be phenomenal, and would have made enough if it were a "false flag" as suggested....BUT WHY FOUR?????!!!!


mainly because one plane would not be a plausible reason for all the WTC buildings to collapse, AND the pentagon renovated that wing specifically to withstand this type of attack. why not use the event to also mask a testing of pentagon defense capabilities? the military does this stuff all the time, with less casualties of course. build something to withstand a blast, blow it up to see if it works.


AND, WHY DID ONE "fail", if the intent was to have FOUR???? Don't you see yet?

Point is, the PLAN failed BECAUSE of United 93!!!! It had an excessive taxi delay prior to take off. This is not a mystery, it is FACT!!!!


sure, this is not uncommon.

drone fails, it crashes. more eerily is the transcripts of the cell phone calls. you as a pilot know that cell signal is unavailable at altitude. this is mainly due to refractive effects of the atmosphere and EM propogation.


Trying to imagfine FOUR airplanes, all commercial jets that were known to have departed on normally scheduled flights, from their respective airports, and NO BODY has yet come forward, not ONE employee who was responsible for those flights


....there are so many layers, and paperwork and documentation.....and PEOPLE who would, by NOW have said something!!! I mean, if there's money to be made...dontcha think SOMEONE would have come forward?????


wanna know what it takes to take off military/government?

"pilot to SDO: hey man, i need to get some hours in today.
SDO to pilot: got a plane in hangar, ill have it set for preflight checks, go file with the tower.
-pilot fills out DD-175, takes 10 minutes, hands it over to ODO for approval and filing-
-pilot calls weather(most do, some dont these days), gets dash one-
pilot walks to plane and departs

it is not that hard to believe, it has already been achieved.

i look forward to your response



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by wx4caster
 


A fueled airliner at high speed makes for quite the bomb. You statement really does not make any sense of any kind.


less of an explosion.

expansion rates on jet fuel are not that impressive when compared to say, fertilizer and jetfuel lol. not to mention there was a massive amount of fuel that was ignited in open air. not in an enclosed space where damage would be max.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
This was John Lear's idea.

He talked about this years ago.

Weedwacker was there...



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by wx4caster
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.


Notice that none of the people on the side of the runway are blown around like ragdolls and none of of the ultralight aircraft are damaged. You have some things to learn about the difference between static and dynamic thrust.





posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


actually, no.

we are not talking about thrust on the sides, the plane that flew into the pentagon had lawn space and objects directly within the blast path of the jet engines.

please explain to me how engines 3-6 feet off of the ground at speed would not cause people and objects to be moved about and impacted?

dont be afraid of the math, either.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by wx4caster
 

If you notice:

The only people being affected by Jetblast are on aircraft throttling to max for takeoff roll-out. Jetblast is only significant when the aircraft is on the ground, and either stationary, or beginning to move. We used to drive/walk behind them all the time with no problems as long as we were about 20 feet past the tail.

reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Jumpseat....
I called it first.



Edit to add, just cause this is awesome:
747 landing at St Maarten, a VASTLY larger aircraft than the 57 or 67, with 2 MORE engines...


[edit on 10/11/2009 by defcon5]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Sounds like excellent idea - probably need some media organization
(NatGeo, History, Discovery) to sponsor it and pay the costs of the
simulator.

Load up a view of terrain for each flight based on radar/flight recorder data

Say start the sim at time each aircraft hijacked (ie 8:15 AM for AA11,
etc) and have people trained to equivalent level try to reproduce flights

Problem with using "truthers" as test subjects - no matter what you do will
always find some excuse to dismiss and cling to their conspiracy fantasy...



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by wx4caster
 


Oh, dear. Quite a lot of misinformation, there. Not talking about the exhaust flows from the engines, in flight, and their effects on the ground, because it really doesn't matter. Irrelevant.

But, let's look at some other "opinions"...


that is my point, if the a person has trouble with a 3-point turn, a 2-dimensional maneuver in a vehicle with nearly 360º vantage, how could the average person pull off a 3D complicated harmony of hydrolics with such precision? but again, that is oppinionated.


First...I just realized the "3-point turn" has no bearing on this, just another pointless analogy? ( Ha! A pun...
)

But, you see...

...how could the average person pull off a 3D complicated harmony of hydrolics with such precision?


You're a WX forecaster, NOT a pilot I surmise. There is just nothing terribly complicated about a descending turn. At any given angle of bank, and airspeed (and assuming no wind) the radius of turn will be the same. His turn, in fact, was NOT precise at all....you can see it in the FDR animation. His airspeed control was sloppy, and he occasionally banked beyond 35 degrees...at which time a nice voice starts droning "bank angle, bank angle" from an overhead speaker, as a friendly reminder.

Let me explain it more: From the point when he disconnected the autopilot, level cruise at about 8,000 and roughly 300 knots, the stab would have been trimmed. Pulling power back, and beginning the descent while holding about the same airspeed is easy...you don't even need to trim it much...the airplane is very forgiving, and easy to handle.

He is finishing the turn, at about 2,500 feet he's lining up on Columbia Pike (Rte 244) and you see the power being added, and aispeed increasing rapidly as he just pushed forward and aims in the dive until impact. With adrenaline pumping, I doubt he bothered with the stab trim...and no unusually high control forces are needed.


OK, shifting gears...(still in that 3-point turnabout...)

Let's see EXACTLY what the Predator is...


preadator pilots pull off complicated maneuvers and strikes via UAVs remotely controlled by operators hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles away from thier unit from computer screens and joysticks inside connex boxes, and they do it every day. this is not a stretch of the imagination.


Yes...they have a great job. BUT, stilll takes a lot of training, experience and practice.

Oh, one more thing...know how fast a predator is???


Performance

Maximum speed: 135 mph (117 knots, 217 km/h)
Cruise speed: 81–103 mph (70–90 knots, 130–165 km/h)


For more, here is some suggested additional reading. Yeah, I know it's Wiki, but it was handiest, there are plenty of other sources too.

Still, not to disparage their skills, but really you have plenty of time to think and plan at about 80 Kts....and by remote, the slower the better, to stay out of trouble.


Phone calls, now.


more eerily is the transcripts of the cell phone calls. you as a pilot know that cell signal is unavailable at altitude.


Depends on the altitude. BUT what gets lost in all the noise of "discussion" when the subject of phone calls is brought up is the simple fact that MOST of the calls were made with the onboard AirPhone system...not cells.

Also, the cells can work down around 5,000 feet. Problem is multi-fold, the cell towers don't radiate upwards, mostly...and when the airplnaes are moving fast the signal has to be handed from tower to tower, so the chance of getting dropped is high. But, they CAN work, if lucky.

In the case of United 93, from what I've read there were exactly TWO cell calls made, both very short...AND the airplane was at about 5,000 MSL...where the terrain is about 2,500....so well within the Tower's ability to receive.

American 77? At around 8,000 over a major metropolitan area? Chance of a cell working is good, I'd say.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


[run on]well, when the "theory" has fronts in the financial, political, physical, circumstantial, testimonial, historical, etc, arenas that all point to an inside job, and you have an 'army' of people online trying to disconnect all the dots with thought experiments and "excuse"-type arguments like the one proposed in this thread, it is inevitable that deconstructing one TINY piece of the overall conspiracy "theory" will be highly unsatisfactory to anyone who has looked more than glancingly at the issue. [/run on]

not to mention, that a simulator is not real life.

so, your apparent disappointment in not being able to convince conspiracy theorists of half-cocked "proofs" is a happy thing for a hard core conspiracy observer like myself to enjoy.

THANKS, thedman!!

i will tell you, if i had a chance to do this sim, i would try as hard as i could to hit the target(s).






top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join