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

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ACTUALLY, is was some French dude who originally raised all of the 'questions'...and BECAUSE of the Internet the rest, as they, is 'History'.

That's funny. There were no French people at my house when I watched 7 come down and said to myself "That is definitely not right." You have some interesting fantasies.

Originally posted by Has2b


Nevertheless "privately" they held strong reservations about how"easy"it would be!

The video I posted show an amateur pilot do it.... three times. This thread should be closed.

posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SPreston

 

SPRESTON....I AM A 'Real' pilot'

But, to make it clear....these "real pilots', who I will repeat from your post...

(BTW, these HANDFUL from out of the over 60,000 THOUSAND professional pilots who exist, not only in ALPA, by alsoin other Uninons, such as the APA and SWAPA....out of THOSE tens of thousands, you get...hmmmm......HOW many???)

Where are they? How come not one of those real pilots will come out and publicly stake their reputations and their moral values on the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY?

reply to post by ImAPepper


Shhhhh ImAPepper!
They dont pay attention to facts when they alone disprove the garbage they post.

I watched the vid. Three tries, three hits. Plain as day. Amazing how so called "experts" and "fighter pilots" couldn't hit the Twin Towers, but a newbie could, three times, on a target that was a fraction of the size of the WTCs.

I also watched a Mythbusters where they wanted to see if it is possible to have a civilian with no flying experience be able to land a passenger jet by being talked down by a professional pilot or aviation expert in the tower. Both guys managed to land safely with just verbal instructions from the control tower.

reply to post by GenRadek


I have not been able to get to a computer that I can watch this on. Did he hit the Pentagon? Did he follow the given flight path? Just curious.

reply to post by Lillydale


In the video he does hit the Pentagon on all three tries. He does the descending turn all the way in, and manages to hit on all three tries. In the three impacts, he hits more or less in the same area of the wing of the Pentagon, give or take 10 meters left or right of the actual impact. It wasnt an attempt to completely recreate in every exact micro-detail the crash, but it does show what a so called "inexperienced" person can do in a simulator. and it was a pretty decent simulator device too. The guy hits it following nearly the same path. I say nearly cause again, its kinda hard to recreate down to the minuscule exactness of the maneuver on 9/11.
But in all, it does show that it is possible for even someone with very little training in flying to be able to fly and crash the plane into the Pentagon.

Originally posted by GenRadek
It wasnt an attempt to completely recreate in every exact micro-detail the crash, but it does show what a so called "inexperienced" person can do in a simulator.

Well you stated the problem with the sim.

1. They did not follow the exact flight path from flight 77's FDR.

2. There was an experienced pilot there to help.

reply to post by PHIXER2


I guess to make the simulation more realistic, you would want them to cut the throats of some victims first with box cutters too, eh?

If they cant do that, then how could they possibly fly a plane into a building?

Originally posted by gavron
I guess to make the simulation more realistic, you would want them to cut the throats of some victims first with box cutters too, eh?

If they cant do that, then how could they possibly fly a plane into a building?

Oh i see since you cannot debate me with facts and evidence you have to attack me.

Originally posted by PHIXER2

Originally posted by GenRadek
It wasnt an attempt to completely recreate in every exact micro-detail the crash, but it does show what a so called "inexperienced" person can do in a simulator.

Well you stated the problem with the sim.

1. They did not follow the exact flight path from flight 77's FDR.

2. There was an experienced pilot there to help.

1. But why should someone be expected to be able to exactly match the exact same flight path in a sim? That would be like me telling you to follow the exact same path a rally racer tacks across the Baha Peninsula track, or re-enact a car accident and have the cars behave the same way. You cannot re-create in the exact same way something that is governed by the complexity and variables of the situation at the moment of occurrence. You cannot recreate something as complex as the exact same flight path of a suicidal pilot hellbent on doing a kamikaze dive. Sure you can recreate it to best of the abilities, but that was not the point of this particular simulation. This was to see if it is at all possible to have a newbie do something similar.

2. The pilot assisting this person is not a major factor in this case. Why? The terrorists already enough flight training to be able to pull off their job. After all, take-off and landing are the hardest parts of the whole flight. The rest is a cake-wake in comparison. You learn how to do turns and descents in the very beginning of flight training. That is all they had to do. This simulation had a total newbie with nearly no training getting instructions on something that the terrorists would have already known long before in their flight training. Again, it proved that it is not that hard with the proper simple training to crash a plane into a building after a descending turn.

Originally posted by GenRadek
1. But why should someone be expected to be able to exactly match the exact same flight path in a sim?

By programming the data from the FDR into the sim.


2. The pilot assisting this person is not a major factor in this case. Why? The terrorists already enough flight training to be able to pull off their job.

Yes the pilot is a major factor in helping out the person in the sim.

No at least one hijacker only had abot 100 hours of training, and th AA77 hijacker would have had a lot of problems pulling off a turn with little or no correctins during the turn.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by PHIXER2]

Originally posted by PHIXER2


By programming the data from the FDR into the sim.

No at least one hijacker only had abot 100 hours of training, and th AA77 hijacker would have had a lot of problems pulling off a turn with little or no correctins during the turn.

To suggest that this person fly the EXACT path as Hani Hanjour is plain silly. What truthers questioned was if the plane would be able to handle it and if a pilot like Hanjour could pull it off:

360 degree turn - check
drop of 7000 feet- check
done in two minutes- check
plane stays intact- check
crash into the Pentagon at 800 K/hr- check
accomplished by a novice pilot (three times)- check

THREAD CLOSED!



[edit on 17-10-2009 by ImAPepper]

Originally posted by ImAPepper

360 degree turn - check
drop of 7000 feet- check
done in two minutes- check
plane stays intact- check
crash into the Pentagon at 800 K/hr- check
accomplished by a novice pilot (three times)- check

THREAD CLOSED!

1. No 360 turn, the actual turn was 270 degrees (according to the FDR data i have from the NTSB)

2. The plane in the sim hits a different section of the Pentagon because it does not fly the same flight path as AA77.

3. The novice pilot in sim is helped by an experienced pilot.

MAIN PROBLEM IS THAT THERE IS NO FBI/NTSB REPORT THAT MATCHES PARTS FOUND TO AA77.

Originally posted by PHIXER2

Originally posted by GenRadek
1. But why should someone be expected to be able to exactly match the exact same flight path in a sim?

By programming the data from the FDR into the sim.


2. The pilot assisting this person is not a major factor in this case. Why? The terrorists already enough flight training to be able to pull off their job.

Yes the pilot is a major factor in helping out the person in the sim.

No at least one hijacker only had abot 100 hours of training, and th AA77 hijacker would have had a lot of problems pulling off a turn with little or no correctins during the turn.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by PHIXER2]

But this simulation was just to see if a newbie can do it. Not a complete re-enactment with the FDR data. Plus, what exactly would that prove? Every person will fly differently, and no two flights are ever the same, no matter how hard you try. To try and insinuate that if someone else cannot fly exactly the same way as someone else did under totally different circumstances, is proof enough that the original incident did not happen or was impossible, is being dishonest.

How hard is it to do a 330 degree turn? I thought that is the first thing they teach you in flying. For some reason there is a lot of disinfo on this topic. A turn as was completed by the terrorist is not a problem. Weedwhacker explains this far-better than I, as he is one to know, since he is a real deal pilot.
Exactly what problems would the hijacker have executing a turn? Hell, even in a silly PC flight sim, its pretty easy to do a turn around. You just bank the aircraft in the direction you want to turn, and turn. Keep turning until you regain your target.

Originally posted by GenRadek
But this simulation was just to see if a newbie can do it. Not a complete re-enactment with the FDR data. Plus, what exactly would that prove?

Without the sim being exact then you cannot state with fact that what was done at the Pentagon can be done by a newbe.

reply to post by PHIXER2


Irregardless!
The point of this particular sim was to see if someone with little training can hit the Pentagon after completing a turn. The person did it three times.

You are trying to nit-pick and say because the person hit slightly off the actual impact area and did not follow the exact same flightpath as AA77, right down to the same millimeter, it cannot be allowed as evidence or proof, and there-fore inadmissible. That is not how this works. Nit-picking something like this and using incredulity is no way to disprove of a fact. Fact was and is, a person with little training and only going on advice by a pilot managed to hit the Pentagon three times without difficulty. The hijackers had a lot more training than this person, and managed to do it for real. Again, doing turns and descents are not hard maneuvers. Doing a loop-de-loop into an half Cuban-eight, now thats a tough maneuver.
Maybe one day, someone will able to completely duplicate the flight path taken by the hijacker. But that will probably come after hours of practice because you simply cannot replicate the mind or the hand of the terrorist, and the variables at the time of 9/11. And even if someone does, it still will not be enough to satisfy the most die-hard of the so called "truth" movement. They will nit-pick and whine at the littlest detail that doesn't make sense or is too hard for them to understand.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Irregardless!
The point of this particular sim was to see if someone with little training can hit the Pentagon after completing a turn. The person did it three times..

But it was not done the same way as was done on 9/11. Which is the real debate. Not that someone can just hit the Pentagon but can it be done the way it was on 9/11.

JUST FLYING A PLANE INTO THE PENTAGON HS NO REAL VALUE AS FAR AS THE DEBATE.




[edit on 17-10-2009 by PHIXER2]

reply to post by PHIXER2


But the newbie managed to do it practically by himself with little training. Only help was from a pilot seated next to him. why is this so hard to understand? The hijackers had far more experience and actually flew aircraft. the newbie, never did. So, you expect me to believe that just because they were not able to completely recreate the exact same flightpath, which was done by a hijacker who has already had training in aircraft and has been licensed to fly, with someone who never flew a real plane before and was only going by the commands of a pilot, this somehow negates the fact that the "maneuver" was not all that complicated? And by that, it means that the actual maneuver is impossible? That is highly illogical reasoning.

Originally posted by GenRadek

But the newbie managed to do it practically by himself with little training.

JUST FLYING A PLANE INTO THE PENTAGON HAS NO REAL VALUE AS FAR AS THE DEBATE.

reply to post by PHIXER2


But wait, I thought it was. Everyone was making such a big deal that its so impossible to crash into the Pentagon after making a large turn, and here we have a newbie do it three times. But you stick your fingers in your ear and shout and try to drown it out, because the person did not fly the exact same flightpath or impact in the exact same spot on the Pentagon. Sheesh, and what will happen if someone will manage to do it?
The newbie managed to fly very close to the actual flight path. But because it wasnt exact, it means nothing? jeeze