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.

 

9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

page: 10
141
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
Did I mention the hijackers never flew a 757 before?

But yet they flew them like professionals on 9/11.

There are too many unbelievable things that happened on 9/11.

There are way too many coincidences to be coincidental.


"Flew them like professionals"? Define "professional".

All the "professional" pilots I know (and I know many) would be loathe to be lumped in with these kamikazes. These true professional pilots would rebut that claim vociferously.

If the "professional" you speak of are the so-called "pilots" that grace the membership rolls of Pilots for 9/11 Truth - you know, the ones who claim they could not even hit the side of a 208-foot wide building with a 150-foot wide airplane - then I would agree. In fact, I would submit the hijackers were *better* pilots than the PfT crew, since the hijackers demonstrably could hit the side of the aforementioned building.

Maneuvering a 767 through space would be extremely easy, especially for someone with the experience and skills of the hijackers. No question. The speeds were very reachable, the target was big and stationary, the end game - crash the airplane - the easiest thing in the world, the plan simple, the results spectacular.

Claiming these hijackers flew the planes "professionally" is illustrative of your ignorance of aviation. Making an aircraft go up or go down is not difficult in the least. Advancing the throttles forward or aft is not difficult in the least. Turning the yoke left or right is not difficult in the least. The most basic flight student is taught how to read a compass from day one of his training. Visual navigation is important to a student as well...how difficult would it be to take over a plane in western New York state, turn until you fly 090 and turn south when you hit the first major north-south river you come to. You have to be "professional" to do that?




posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
haters are going to hate

there is no way to know who flew that planes or if they were flown remotely

so ... take your hate and shove it on something else, there is nothing to prove really ... we all can present facts and theories, but what really matters is that all the possibilities are possible by math, so ... there you have it

the question is why is the truth hidden from everyone?

why the world lets the US $%¨$ with everything it touches? why nobody asks questions?

these are the question we should be trying to answer

just to point out, every single person in the universe knows the US lied, you just need to search on google, "911 commission members", and you will realize why



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol

"...you just need to search on google..."


lol...now THERE'S a tried and true Truther approach to research!

Please excuse me if I don't take a single syllable you say as having any intellectual rigor or basis of fact in the least.

"Search on google". Beautiful.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


I didnt get your point, I said exactly what you should have to search for, to find out the real quotes I want you to read

is that too hard?

if you have people here have the strength to be mad and to answer with anger, they probably have the strength to move the mouse a little



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Doctor G
 


Don’t worry you will have the debunkers in here shortly saying these guys flying these flight simulators couldn’t fly a real plane if their life depended on it.

You will hear, how all Truthers cling to pilot’s fantasies.
The OS believers want you to believe the government word is pure and honest as day.
The OS believers want you to believe that hijackers who could never be identified because they were using stolen identities, which turned them invisible and could, not take off or land a Cessna 172. They want you to believe these hijackers just walked inside a Boeing 757,767 for the first time and had the understanding of the navigation equipment and knew how to program all the onboard computer equipment in the cockpit, yet they could not navigate or pass the written test of the instruments in a Cessna 172.

In essence, the OS believers want you to believe in a fairytale.





[edit on 14-8-2010 by impressme]


By no means coming in here as a debunker, but you know that since 9/11 several flightsims have purposefully removed the ability for building collision with - I think - actual crash landings as they thought the ability to do so would be seen as gloryfying the possibility. Now if anyone responds and says 'BS, I've just tried and managed to collide with a tall building'.... then you've proved it is possible to do so and therefore have shown the actual OP title is incorrect.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
If there was no contact with any control towers, surely it would have been impossible for the hijackers to fly these planes to New York, never mind into the buildings!



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Landing a large aircraft with the precision that is required, is done hundreds of times every day. Pilots grease those birds in to some of the most dangerous airfields on the planet with rarely a misshap, and they usually put the wheels down consistently inside a 50 foot square box at the head of the runway irregardless of crosswinds, downdrafts and updrafts.

How can anyone possibly believe that hitting a huge building would be more difficult.

The logic behind this speaks for itself.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 


lambros56, could you please explain WHY you think that it is necessary to be in "contact with control towers"???

Your understanding of aviation may be in need for some improvement...happy to help with your learning. I happen to think that the better educated the lay public are, the better....it may be beyond the bounds of this thread, though...still, SOME things can be addressed and explained.

...perhaps I should search for some videos on ATC? Might help in comprehension to show others just HOW it was possible for the hijackers to accomplish what they did, back then.

Remember....this was unprecedented --- and while some claims are made that it had been considered[ as a possibility, it seems no one really took it very seriously. At least, it was never, never communicated to us, the line pilots, to be alert to as a possibility. Not in any of our coninuing anually refresher training events -- which always included "security", and hijacking information. Which was based solely on events in the PAST, and what was decided upon as a "common strategy" to address future air piracy events.

The "common strategy" did not take into account the suicidal aspects of the criminal, and their intent. Only in retrospect, were the warning signs there....I think we may have been a bit blind to the possibilities, because they were so horrific, and seemed so improbable to us...people who constantly tried NOT to crash and die.


~~~~~~~

\Whilst rummaging for videos, found this on Google (hope I know how to embed..)

Air traffic controllers, BTW, although essential for the busy and efficient managing of a lot of traffic, are NOT essential...pilots are quite autonomous, thank-you-very-much!!!


With ALL of the crap and BS coming from the many, many 9/11 "conspiracy" sites, it is important for FACTS and solid, sober evidence be presented:


Google Video Link






[edit on 18 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thanks for the vid. I`ve seen it before.
As for the sarcasm.....i wont go there.
The video you posted doesn`t give me the answer i was looking for.

I don`t understand how someone without enough experience can fly around in a commercial jet without being directed by anyone, find New York then aim the jet and hit it first time.
I`m only asking a question.
I`m not claiming anything.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
With all the dangerous maneuvers they did before they hit the buildings it is amazing they even made it to New York. Amazing flying happens all the time. No evidence of a conspiracy here, just insinuations.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doctor G
I thought the article was really interesting in that you just cannot hit the Pentagon in a 757 or 767 flying 20 feet off the ground for a mile. These planes are just not designed to do it. Not even an expert can do it.

Planes are not designed to take in consideration the altitude about ground level. They can fly one inch above the ground for long distances.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by lambros56

I don`t understand how someone without enough experience can fly around in a commercial jet without being directed by anyone, find New York then aim the jet and hit it first time.


Its easy peasy. How hard is it to sit in a cockpit seat of an already-flying aircraft and manipulate the yoke and throttle to make the aircraft go where you want it to go? You want to go right? You move the yoke right. You want to go up? You pull the yoke back. You want to go faster? You move the throttles forward. I could continue, but I hope you get the idea.

Why do you need direction from anyone to fly anywhere? How difficult is it to find one of the biggest cities in the world? How hard is it t "aim" a jet, for crying out loud? And how tough is it to point a jet directly at one of the tallest buildings on the face of the earth and not miss it (very ultra-hyper-mucho difficult nigh impossible for the pilots of 9/11 Truth, apparently)?

Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm just asking a question. Well, 8 actually.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Try hitting the side of the Pentagon which was only 72 - 77 feet high without touching the ground after making a complicated 270 degree descending turn from 7000 feet. Hani Hanjour was a very poor pilot. One of his instructors said he should not even drive a car.

I know the Pentagon area well and have been inside at the same area where the alleged crash took place.

Its a lot more difficult than it looks.

Even more difficult is to disappear a 757 into a small hole less than 40 feet wide and 20 feet high. The distance from the belly of the plane to the top of the tail is about 50 feet and the wingspan about 112 feet....



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by The Surgeon
 



Try hitting the side of the Pentagon....


Who said that was what he was trying to do? We know thats what he did do, but how do you know what his intent was?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by lamabomb
 


" ...( all the major structural beams broken neatly in 30 ft chunks shipped off to a Chinese landfill within 24 hours ) ... "

This is not only untrue , it is a BOLD-FACED LIE that truthers continue to perpetuate .

You cannot and will not back this up with sources that prove it to be true . It is nothing more than another lie that some truther started somewhere along the way and the rest of you have picked it up and run with it .

STOP IT .

Metal Management Northeast , of Newark , NJ and Hugo New Schnitzer East , of Jersey City , NJ won the initial bids to RECYCLE the steel from the WTC .

At the time of the following article , at least three ships , the Brozna , the Shen Quan Hai , and the Pindos , shipped this steel to Chennai , a South INDIAN port city .

PEC Ltd. , an INDIAN state-owned metals trader , imported at least 33,000 tons from New Jersey , selling it to local steel mills .

The Baosteel Group of Shanghai , China , purchased at least 50,000 tons .

More of the steel went to Malaysa and South Korea .

Metal Management Northeast also sold 500 tons to the International Agile Manufacturing foundry in Statesboro , Ga. The orders were cancelled once it became known that they intended to use it for commemorative medallions .

Metal Management also donated several pieces to organizations that were planning to use it for a memorial to the WTC .

NOWHERE , have I found any sources that prove , or even assert , that this steel went to a Chinese landfill . This ridiculous claim can only be found in the truther camp .

If I am wrong , then please show me proof of it .

I won't be holding my breath .

www.freezerbox.com...

www.landlinemag.com...

And , " 24 hours " ?


Fairytales indeed !




[edit on 18-8-2010 by okbmd]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by The Surgeon
 


Congrats for getting the height of the Pentagon about right...the rest of your numbers, in the post, aren't quite so accurate. Nor are the assertions/assumptions made.



...Pentagon which was only 72 - 77 feet high...


Good!


.... after making a complicated 270 degree descending turn from 7000 feet.


Bad. Well...maybe not so much, you're partly right. Although the total amount of the turn was greater than 270 degrees, there sure was a portion of that turn that included the total of 270 degrees...and although his initial descent, from the straight and level position as he approached was just a bit more than 8,000 feet MSL, at some point in the descent he DID pass through a total of 7,000 feet.

It is the WAY you wrote it that is deceptive, and seems to drip with sarcastic incredulity. This is likely because it is almost word-for-word parroted from a 9/11 "conspiracy" website, isn't it??

I shall include the NTSB video extracted from the DFDR at the bottom of this post...seems it's time to trot it out again. To see exactly how "complicated" this descending turn was (hint: It wasn't. "Complicated", I mean. Nor, difficult in any way).

Now, more clarity, to dispel so many of the false impressions, partly correct, but inflated, that the "conspiracy sites like to promote:


Hani Hanjour was a very poor pilot. One of his instructors said he should not even drive a car.


Yes, highly probable. I don't wish to seem --- ummm --- culturally insensitive when I say this, but: My experience in flight instructing (many years ago), and other anecdotal stories from people who ALSO encountered people of a certain cultural background relate some similarity.

Depending on a person' upbringing, and environment, they may lack a bit of mechanical aptitude, and even good reasoning and planning abilities. We've all heard the jokes about some automobile drivers, attributed to nationality or genetics, or even gender, right??

Point is, though...Hani Hanjour DID manage to get an FAA Examiner somewhere to deem him barely qualified to be granted an Airman's Certificate. (Assuming he had one issued by the FAA...actually, I don't know that for a fact. He COULD have acquired a foreign pilot's license, and THEN had it 'converted' to a US Certificate. Would be a good thing to research, for clarity).

The fact that, when he wished to be "checked out" to rent a Cessna 172, his performance was sub-par, doesn't necessarily reflect on his abilities to just FLY an airplane...to steer, turn, level off, start a descent, and use the thrust levers.

The analogy is: A person who is capable of driving a car out in a rural area, but may not be very smooth, or may have difficulty when the situation gets more demanding. This same person, thrown into a stress situation, say like driving in a major city's downtown at rush hour? His abilities would be taxed.

A company won't rent one of their airplanes to someone who can't demonstrate ALL of the skills needed to be a safe pilot...everything, from preflight, set-up and prep, starting, taxiing, take-offs, "airwork" (stalls, steep turns, slow flight) and of course proper landing techniques...AL while showing ability to comprehend English, use the radio...in essence, MULTI-TASK.

Other hand? Learning one to three specific things to do to operate the Autopilot of a B-757, once already in flight --- and no need to do all the other things? Hand-flying for the final portion? Easy, easy, easy.

If you can see out the windows, you can steer the airplane. Yes, everyone reading this right now could do it (assuming one had all of his faculties, limbs, etc).



I know the Pentagon area well and have been inside at the same area where the alleged crash took place.

Its a lot more difficult than it looks.



Interesting. "alleged" crash??? Wow!

What is "difficult"? (We'll watch the video at the end, remember).

I was looking at the Pentagon this morning, form the eighth floor of the Marriott Residence Inn, the one there on Army-Navy Drive. Know it?

View was directly towards the Annex (and the USAF Memorial sculpture, not there in 2001). It is just about a perfectly abeam view of the path of AAL 77.

One can easily see the slope of the terrain, and visualize the airplane as it DESCENDED in a shallow path, from left to right, as I'm describing.

We'll watch the descent in the video, at the bottom, from the airplane's perspective.

Finally...this is the constant (and incorrect, misleading) refrani from those "conspiracy" websites, isn't it?:


Even more difficult is to disappear a 757 into a small hole less than 40 feet wide and 20 feet high.


Been covered ad infinitum already---yet it still lingers?? Websites that don't update their information...so much for their "credibility", huh?



The distance from the belly of the plane to the top of the tail is about 50 feet and the wingspan about 112 feet....


Height of the top of the vertical stabilizer ("tail") when the airplane is ON THE GROUND, and on its landing gear (not the belly) is 44 feet, 6 inches.

Irrelevant, anyway, how much the "tail" protrudes above the fuselage roofline...the majority of the vertical fin is made of a composite material, with SOME structures that are aluminum, where the strength is needed, such as attachment points, and so forth.

The wingspan of the B-757 is just shy (2 inches) of 125 feet. Again...the portions of the wings that extend outboard of where the engines are mounted?? Tapering, thinning, and made of substantially lesser-weight materials than inboard....they do NOT carry a lot of air loads, and are designed accordingly.

Here, link to details to substantiate everything, provide facts (to counter so many DISTORTIONS) and give a mental image:




Finally, the long-awaited video (again...but, hey! It's worth it, in case some haven't seen it).

(IT IS interesting to hear the sound track the YouTuber chose to put on this one...If you listen to it --- after you WATCH the video --- then you begin to see the TRUE nature of any "conspiracy". The four airplanes WERE hijacked, and crashed as reported/seen/investigated. It was the INTEL screw-up that is being covered up!!!):



Of course...it could be argued that elements within the Bush administration intentionally "averted their gaze", and 'allowed' the terrorist plots to go forth....still THAT is a valid "conspiracy"...NOT, as some insist, some half-baked notions of "remote control", or "holograms", or anything else along those lines.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude

Originally posted by Doctor G
I thought the article was really interesting in that you just cannot hit the Pentagon in a 757 or 767 flying 20 feet off the ground for a mile. These planes are just not designed to do it. Not even an expert can do it.

Planes are not designed to take in consideration the altitude about ground level. They can fly one inch above the ground for long distances.


You are talking about what's theoretically possible. Doctor G is talking about what's practically possible. It's pretty obvious you don't know much at all about flight if you think it's no problem to hover a couple feet, let alone an inch, above the ground in a massive plane like that, generating massive amounts of air pressure around it because of its size and speed.

There is a "suction" that's caused by air pressure differences created when a plane like that starts getting so close to the ground, that can easily cause you to smash the ground, and make a very jerky ride that the pilot has to compensate for and all kinds of trouble. Unless the pilot is a computer, in which case it could have already been taken into account and you may be able to get a lot closer.

But 1 inch would still be damned impressive to me in a jumbo-jet, even with a computer. You'd want a very precisely flat surface that extended for a long distance too. I'll believe it when I see it.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


What??


There is a "suction" that's caused by air pressure differences created when a plane like that starts getting so close to the ground, that can easily cause you to smash the ground...


Where do people GET this stuff???


No. There isn't any "suction" to "pull" you down and smash you to the ground!

Honestly...this is beyond the pale and entering territory that is just fantasy, combined with a dollop of layman's imagination.


~~~~~

Should add (AGAIN) that it's irrelevant anyhow. Because, "20 feet off the ground for a mile" DID NOT HAPPEN!!!


757, high-speed, about a wingspan above the ground....well over 250 knots, guess maybe about ~300:



Fighters, but an airplane is an airplane:



More fighters, under complete control LOW altitude, HIGH speed..even in FORMATION!:



Self-explantory:



How about....a piston airplane? (P-51s are pretty fast, ya know...):



[edit on 18 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Whatever is going on when you try to get that close to the ground in a jumbo-jet, it makes the ride jerky as hell, and it's not easy at all to control and you know it.

If you want to put on like otherwise then I'll believe you when I see you post a video of yourself doing it. I'm sure you can do it if "pilots" with a bare minimum of training, and still said to be horrible pilots at that by their instructors, were able to do it on the first try.


And I'm going to keep reminding you that you've posted outright false information before, several times within a single post even, and then had no response at all when I called you out on it. At least you know you'll get something back from me about it, and I won't skirt around it. You could at least have the same decency.

Let's see what was it in particular before I forget...

You tried to insinuate the wargames didn't confuse any personnel that day. When the reports of 9/11 occurring starting coming in, it's on the record, people were definitely confused. They starting asking "Is this real world or exercise?", remember?

There were a couple other things and you just blew me off. See, I remember that. There is no use even trying to have a debate with someone who does that.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Here is an alternative scenario: the hijackers were not the same people that were trained in the flight schools, although they had the same id.

I think that it is quite reasonable to assume that TPTB have two kinds of terrorists under their command: the real terrorists who are extremely well trained and the wanna be terrorists that are used for identity theft. Mohammed Atta and the others were of the latter kind of terrorists, ie tools that were led to believe they would participate in the terrorist act, only to be killed a few days before 9/11.



new topics




 
141
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join