9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

reply to post by masterp


That's a new one....not very logical , but at least new.

No....it's overly complicated, and means that there were even MORE terrorists, who happened to be able to fly, who were also willing to die??

Remember, not just once....the hijackers were NOT completely at ease in the 757/767 cockpit, in that they weren't totally familiar with everything.

Not knowing how to use the PA, for instance....probably didn't think to practice for that, just picked up the nearest mic, and thought it was for the PA.

(Makes sense, IF they had some experience on the 727. THAT airplane did have a dedicated mic for the PA...so do most older 737s. Easy to confuse someone not that experienced).

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


??? Please explain how you know this:

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.

How many times have you flown a "jumbo-jet" close to the ground?

Oh, wait...every time you take off and land?

(Or...is this about your experience with some sort of home computer flight sim??)

The only OTHER possibility to account for any "bumpiness" near the ground would be thermals. And/or high winds. BUT, thermal activity can cause rough rides at higher altitudes, to....however, it was not a day for thermals on 11 September, and early in the morning the ground usually hasn't had time to heat up anyway....and the winds were very light.







[edit on 18 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


More exaggerations:

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?

See my post above, page back....with the Google video about ATC!!

Please watch, and learn

Originally posted by weedwhacker
??? Please explain how you know this:

Nope, doesn't matter.

You're trying to tell me flying that close to the ground is easy then? Go ahead and say it if that's what you want us to believe!! I can see what you're doing here well enough.

I told you I'd believe it when I see it. I haven't seen it yet. The other videos only seem to prove how far off the ground these planes still are, even when the pilots ARE intentionally trying to fly low to the ground.


The Pentagon was hit, apparently, on ground level. If it wasn't, it was only elevated a foot or two max.


And still no reply to my refuting your disinfo on our first encounter. Still trying to tell us that no one was confused by the wargames too?

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


I will post this link again . Please read it and then , if you don't find it credible , please tell us why .

I have posted this numerous times in these 9/11 threads and everyone either ignores it and refuses to read it or , they read it and can't refute it so they just go about as if I hadn't posted it at all .

According to this fellow , it was not impossible nor did it take extraordinary skill to fly the airliner into the Pentagon in the manner in which the terrorists did .

He goes into detail explaining 'ground effect' .

Please read it instead of ignoring it and continuing to say that it was impossible , because Mr. Scott presents a very detailed analysis that is also very convincing .

It was not impossible and anyone with basic flight skills could have done it . Ground effect would not have prevented it .

www.aerospaceweb.org...

[edit on 18-8-2010 by okbmd]

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by weedwhacker
??? Please explain how you know this:

Nope, doesn't matter.

/me looks for the image of the child with his fingers in his ears.

There needs to be a thread called "How To Get A Master's Degree From Truther University" and the curriculum should consist of learning the lines "Nope, doesn't matter" or "Google it" and seeing how far into one's ears one can shove their fingers.

Seriously. How can you possibly simply talk with someone, much less engage in meaningful discussion or debate, when their most effective comeback to a request to explain something is "Nope, doesn't matter"?

Faster and funnier, please!

How can you seriously debate with an official MSM'er who believes that thousands of coincidences and amazing things happened to help these poor hardly professional "terrorists" to take out useless buildings and and not actually hurt the USA.

Now we have someone telling us it is easy to pilot these planes, to get the planes to completely annihilate 3 buildings and make sure to destroy important financial records in a building of war.

It is YOU guys who ask for TOTAL stretches and leaps of faith beyond all reality to be able to even swallow a small portion of this incredible feat.

God was surely on the side of these 19 dudes, he allowed everything and MORE!

He even helped stop any investigations into the matter! Case Closed!

reply to post by trebor451

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?

The point in which they are making in using the term "Professionally" should instead read "professionally executed flight maneuvers".

Interesting that in your wisdom of aviation flight controls,You mention the compass but you forgot to mention the one most important for directional control, the rudder pedals.

Unless you are flying Microsoft Flight Simulator , where they auto coordinate ailerons and rudder for you....allowing one to execute turns ala turning the wheel of a car thereby making rudder control unnecessary.


Of course in the real world it isn't all that simplistic, to execute a smooth coordinated turn and to maintain altitude control. Especially with a heavy aircraft.

But anyway, back to my hypothesis of Dov Zakheim's electronic hijack pilot assist system.

The Pentagon Hijacker , who couldn't pass a check ride in a Cessna 172 a couple of weeks prior to 911 suddenly could execute precise banking turns as a military trained and experienced pilot would.

Another interesting tidbit of information that also leads to the electronic hijacking hypothesis is that according to the flight 77 data recorder, the cockpit door was never opened.

On 27 November 2009 PilotsFor911Truth.org published a simple fact about the flight of Flight 77 which makes a conventional hijacking scenario impossible - according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. The status of the door was polled every 5 seconds from 12:18:05 GMT to 13:37:09 GMT, and each poll logged the door as closed (a CSV file of the log can be downloaded here).

All in all...

If we werent being treated as fools with all of the lies we are being told in the OS, and this isn't the first time our Govt. has lied to us. Then there wouldn't be a need for those of us so adamantly seeking the truth.

Dov Zakheim and the missing Pentagon Trillions....

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. The group's Statement of Principles [PDF] published September 2000 stated that "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" would advance their policies.
Dov Zakheim is a co-author of the Statement of Principles and an ex-CEO of System Planning Corporation which manufactures equipment to remotely pilot aircraft. Zakheim was appointed as Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Pentagon by President Bush on May 4, 2001.

How did the Trillions of Dollars go missing from the Pentagon ? They went to Israel courtesy of this guy, Dov Zakheim and all evidence and subsequent paper trail conveniently buried under the rubble of 911.

Dov Zakheim who is now under the employ of Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the most prestigious strategy consulting firms (CIA Front) in the world.

www.onlinejournal.com...



whatreallyhappened.com...

[edit on 19-8-2010 by nh_ee]

Originally posted by nh_ee

How did the Trillions of Dollars go missing from the Pentagon ? They went to Israel courtesy of this guy, Dov Zakheim and all evidence and subsequent paper trail conveniently buried under the rubble of 911.

Dov Zakheim who is now under the employ of Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the most prestigious strategy consulting firms (CIA Front) in the world.

This is a classic example of why nobody anywhere has anything to worry about with these Truthers.

How long would it take to amass 2 trillion-plus dollars? That is nearly a half-decade worth of every penny in every defense budget. Suppose, putting on your tin-foil hat, only a small percentage was "stolen" every year. How long would that take to reach 2+ trillion dollars? I didn't know that Zakheim - curse those Joos! - had access to that money for so long!

Let me ask you this. Could you - or any normal person, for that matter - account for every penny you spend over the course of a year or a number of years? Do you keep every receipts, notes on every transaction, detailed information where every penny goes, every dollar spent, including returns and refunds, emergency spending, borrowing, etc? Multiply that by hundreds of billions and that is what Rumsfeld was talking about. It wasn't "missing" - it was undocumented, thanks to an antiquated and poorly designed and managed financial accounting system.

I understand you have more fun yelling about the Jews and how they stole it, and you just keep right on yelling that because it really shows how completely, totally and utterly clueless this "Truther" movement is.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by trebor451]

reply to post by trebor451


No no no. Dov put all the dollars in a big metal suitcase which he handcuffed to his wrist like they do in films and flew them to Israel. Where they spent them on, I dunno, some jewish thing.

I clicked one of the Zakheim links for a laugh. One of them talks about how Israel was purposely placed where it is for access to oil. Brilliant. If they were doing that, might they not have actually put the country on top of the actual oil, instead of next to it? The mind boggles.

911 has been over for nearly 10 years and the government hasn't released one shred of physical evidence for scrutiny by the general public or even scientific community to analyze.

voice recorders
manifests and airport surveillance tapes
all video tapes, but mostly pentagon tapes
plane parts
all witness testimony
and any other evidence that would be relevant.

bush, his staff and the military, under oath before the public. with lie detector test submittle.

we the people have the NEED TO KNOW. because we the people have paid to know. in cash and blood

there is nothing of a restricted or top secret national security nature about those events, and until the government completely discloses, they are guilty of murder,conspiracy,treason,theft,and perjury..."for those who did speak under oath"?

i still say no arab was involved on ground zero's

reply to post by aliengenes


What would prove to you, at least to your satisfaction, that 9/11 pretty much happened the way that most people think it did?

reply to post by nh_ee


Sorry, yet again.

WRONG impressions and understandings of flying, combined with inaccurate/already proven WRONG information about some othr things.

It is TIME for people to realize that the website "PilotsFor9/11Truth" have zero crediblity. I should type that as HAS...since, the "PfT" site is really all about ONE person, in reality.

Somehow, Rob Balsamo conned a few actual pilots (OK...a bit harsh. Balsamo DOES have an Airman's Certificate, but word is he has a medical condition that precludes him from qualifying for a Medical Certificate. You need BOTH to fly).

I think he's a frustrated wannabe airline pilot --- and his INEXPERIENCE shows through, over and over again. His inexperience is matched only be his arrogance. No, there's noting wrong with arrogance --- it happens to be a trait shared by many aviators, myself included. BUT, the difference is, when one is WRONG, yet continues to spout the same gibberish anyway? THAT is a deceitful form of arrogance...

So, let me, please, educate the audience in some finer points af flying "big jets", where there are some misconceptions (likely stemming from those with experience in General Aviation, I.E., small planes).

(In a comment directed towards someone other than me, you said:

You mention the compass but you forgot to mention the one most important for directional control, the rudder pedals.

Please tell me (if you fly) that you don't "steer" with the rudder? I mean, you can, of course...but it's hardly the accepted technique.

But, I know what you're trying to get at:

Unless you are flying Microsoft Flight Simulator , where they auto coordinate ailerons and rudder for you...

I've never flown Microsoft...but I know what you seem to mean. HOWEVER --- large airliners have something called the "Yaw Damper".

Know what that is, and what it does? Well, exactly as its name implies - its function is to automatically stabilize airplanes about the vertical axis (the motion that is called "yaw". It is ON all the time, in flight...(unless it is INOP, and the airplane is dispatched in that configuration -- or it fails in flgiht --- then there are certain flight restrictions --- speed, altitude ---that are imposed, and those vary by airplane model).

For the benefit of non-pilots, what happens in light airplanes (and a good book on aerodynamics will explain in more detail if interested) is, when ailerons are deflected to initiate a roll attitude change (to start a turn, for instance) there is a slight tendency for the airplane to yaw in the WRONG direction, slightly, due to aerodynamic forces from the aileron on the wing that is being asked to go up...the 'high' wing that will be outboard of the turn direction.

The aileron's defliceiton into the relative wind (airstream) causes a slight icrease in induced drag, and therefore a slight "pull" on that wing.

Left turn, example: Left bank, left aileron on wing moves up, right aileron moves down. Intent is to turn to the left, but increased drag forces on the RIGHT wing 'pull' aftwards a bit, and what is felt is termed "uncoordinated" flight. Other term for it is a "slip". ("Side" slip, in this case). Student pilots are learned to "coordinate" with a bit of rudder (only takes a SLIGHT touch, very gentle movements, we're talking here) and the controls...BOTH the ailerons, AND the rudder, are neutralized once the desired angle of bbank is attained. Reverse the process to roll out to level, and stop the turn.

OK...big jets?? Have the yaw damper. Pilots keep their feet flat on the floor! We don't need to use rudder, in flight, except for specific occasions.

Furthermore, big jets rely less on the ailerons for roll control (especially at higher speeds)....most of the roll authority is provided by the Flight Spoilers...and they do not cause any adverse yaw tendencies.

Of course in the real world it isn't all that simplistic, to execute a smooth coordinated turn and to maintain altitude control. Especially with a heavy aircraft.

What does the gross weight of the airplane have to do with it?? Answer: not much. The "feel" on the controls isn't a matter of the airplane's overal weight, as much as it's the DESIGN.

Anycase, we're talking hydraulic assist with the B-757/767, so this is irrelevant.

BTW...just as in ALL airplanes, when a turn is made and you wish to maintain altitude, some back pressure is required...steep the angle of bank, the greater the force on the elevator. Aerodynamics, again --- the amount of lift produced by the wing for a given airspeed and angle of attack remains constant...when the wing is angled away from horizontal, then the force it is producing is boken down into two vectors (for mathematic simplicity)...one vertical, and perpindicular to the horizon, and one at a 90-degree angle to that...provides the centripetal force, in physics language, for the actual direction change in the turn.

Since SOME of the vertical component of lift is deflected horizontally, it MUST be made up somehow, else the airplane will begin to descend, naturally. This is accomplished by increasing the angle of attack, with that elevator back pressure. Doing that will cause, in steeper turns, a drop in airspeed (conservation of energy, if you're physics-minded).

SO...again, this airspeed drop is MINIMAL in shallow banks, say 30 degrees. For precision flying, though...to demonstrate an excellent skill, to maintain exact speed, in a level (not climbing/descending) turn, you must increase thrust. Still, for casual, gentle turns, the speed change is barely noticeable.

If you wish to make a DESCENDING turn, it's even easier!! Thrust is at idle, so you leave it alone, and you just PITCH (that back pressure again) to hold desired speed.

These are the sorts of things that take WAY, WAY too many words to describe, when you can just DO IT and 'feel' it, and it would make perfect sense. Try to compare to driving a car....at highway speeds, what kind of 'pressure' and movements to you use on your steering wheel?? Gentle, right? (One hopes!). No jerky movements, all smooth. But, even at high speeds, IF you needed to avoid something, or steer to a turnoff you are about to miss, you CAN (within reason) get a bit more aggressive on wheel. You can FEEL it, how much is just right, how much would be TOO much.

Same with flying. It usually requires only a subtle touch, and it is all about the "feel"...both in your hand, and in your inner ears, your so-called "seat of the pants".

Gonna see if there's a source online to provide full explanations, with diagrams...you can also check books on flying too...or go take a one-hour introductory lesson, if you have the money.


NOW...the "remeote control" nonsense----

Pentagon Hijacker , who couldn't pass a check ride in a Cessna 172 a couple of weeks prior to 911 suddenly could execute precise banking turns as a military trained and experienced pilot would.

Again...did you NOT see the video produced by the NTSB?? His flying skills were hardly "precise", nor did they exhibit "military precision". That is a bogus claim from the truther" websites out there.

AND, this is from the aforementioned (and also BOGUS) "PilotsForTruth":

Another interesting tidbit of information that also leads to the electronic hijacking hypothesis is that according to the flight 77 data recorder, the cockpit door was never opened.

COMPLETELY false!!!!

Read the thread about it on ATS!

The DFDR on AAL 77 was NOT "wired up" to record the door open/close status!!! That is an OPTIONAL function, and AA did not choose to include it (IE, pay for it).

~~~~~

Found this....it's kinda cute ( since it's from the 1960s! ) Still, the basics of physcis don't change withthe decades. It is "basic", and as a video does better than mere words that I can type out...and it does it in 18 minutes.

(At 9:05 they show two guys getting into a Cessna 150. If my memory of the paint scheme is intact, that it is a model from 1968...Cessna then -- and now, I suppose -- had a different paint scheme design for each model year of their airplanes. Since I'm a bit long in the tooth, I can remember...since I GREW UP around Cessnas, and Pipers and Beechcraft, etc. 1968 was also the second year Cessna introduced the "swept-back" vertical tail design in the 150 model---the 1966 model was a big re-design).

Google Video Link

UGH! Won't embed....

Here's the url: video.google.com...#





[edit on 19 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

Great to have an experienced pilot here to debunk and point out obvious ignorance. I have heard that the best landing a pilot ever makes is his solo landing. 9/11 was the solo flight of the terrorists. Perfect landing, but not a good one, cuz they didn't walk away from it.

reply to post by earthdude


Well...nopt really:

I have heard that the best landing a pilot ever makes is his solo landing.

Never heard that one...just another old wive's tale...

...or an inside joke that somebody started. Lots of pilots have wicked senses of humor....

reply to post by weedwhacker



Just as you don't care about the alloys used in the construction of the computer chip powering the computer that you are using at the moment.

I didn't have the time or interest to read all of that boring information about boring commercial aircraft and their yaw dampers, only to prove that you know more about commercial aircraft than I do ....
For I haven't the time or interest, life is too short to spend at ATS or arguing with people here.



But back to the topic of discussion. Real Pilots and 911.

I do find the information the NTSB data provided to the Pilots for 911 Truth is said to have indicated that the cockpit door was never opened on 911 during Flight 77's famous Pentagon epic flight.

As far as the Jewish comments.
Please.

I cannot change the fact that Dov Zakhem is Israeli or the fact that he co authored the Statements of Principles of the Project for the New American Century or PNAC.

Which stated that "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" would advance their policies.

Or the fact that the office that was investigating the missing Trillions was vaporized by the Pentagon strike ?

What is the probability of this occurring as an Act of God ?


There is absolutely nothing I can do about that because we all make our own beds and it is now part of our History.

What I can do is to not waste my time arguing with people who have a different opinion than mine.

Because It is fruitless and a waste of time.

You have your opinion and I have mine.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."

Its very apparent that we are in the very first stage !

reply to post by nh_ee


Hmmmmmm.

I didn't have the time or interest to read all of that boring information about boring commercial aircraft and their yaw dampers...

Really?? yet, had the time to write, in a post, a completely wrong opinion, and display misunderstandings, and lack of comprehension of the topic...but, now don't want to actually learn something?

Ok..free world, free rights to remain ignorant. I happen to think that people should get ALL of the facts, and see when they're not getting correct information.

I do find the information the NTSB data provided to the Pilots for 911 Truth is said to have indicated that the cockpit door was never opened on 911 during Flight 77's famous Pentagon epic flight.

...AND, as mentioned already...that is a NON-STARTER subject!!

I'll link to the thread, you can read it...if you have time and care about knowing facts, versus the trumped-up nonsense that spews from the vanity website known as "PilotsFor9/11Truth".

(They...well, Balsamo, since HE IS the 'site'...leapt without looking, and put out that baloney without evaluating it thoroughly. Interesting to note: On his website he was huckstering to SELL his DVDs and stuff --- sent out blast emails and everything...get this! His selling "tag" line? To get Mom a present for Mother's Day!! So that "she" will "know the 'truth'"...disgusting, and shameless of him).

BTW...what he DIDN'T mention, in his over-hyped usual way, was that the flight deck door showed as NEVER having been opened for the last 40+ hours of recorded information!!!

The obvious point is, as I (and many, many others) pointed out, that the DFDR was NOT equipped, in that particular installation, on that particular airplane to record that bit of datum!!

Again...HERE is the thread!: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would think twice, thrice before relying on anything coming from that "source"...his motivations are NOT about "seeking truth", not based on his deceptiveness.


OK, moving on to the next... ?

As far as the Jewish comments.
Please.

Not my bailiwick. I will let OTHERS fight that losing battle, and be labeled appropriately. Wouldn't touch it with YOUR ten-foot pole, (or any other appendage) on a bet!


And, still one more that's out of my particular realm of expertise...but I CAN think for myself, and can see how patently ridiculous these claims are...made, no doubt, by many of the "conspiracty" sites, with NO evidence at all to substantiate:

Or the fact that the office that was investigating the missing Trillions was vaporized by the Pentagon strike ?

Yeah, right. In modern age, and they don't have data backed up on computers, all OVER the country, and the world?

This is just too silly, and naive for words...and is not a "fact", which a bit of proper searching will reveal.


In a search for REAL "truth", beware the tendency to fall prey to something known as Confirmation Bias.

A snippet, to whet your appetitie:

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.

YOU may certainly take it, or leave it....no need to "argue" here, as you said. However, hopefully there WILL be plenty of people who pass by this thread, and read because they actually wish to be educated.









[edit on 19 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by nh_ee
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Just as you don't care about the alloys used in the construction of the computer chip powering the computer that you are using at the moment.

I didn't have the time or interest to read all of that boring information about boring commercial aircraft and their yaw dampers, only to prove that you know more about commercial aircraft than I do ....
For I haven't the time or interest, life is too short to spend at ATS or arguing with people here.

....

Its very apparent that we are in the very first stage !

Translation:

I was pretending to know what I was talking about, but now you've shown that I'm wrong and that my opinions are ill-founded I prefer to carry on with my misconceptions anyway.

Okay, just ignore me again, "Weedwhacker."


So you're saying it's easy to fly 1 or 2 feet off the ground in a jumbo-jet?

You're saying those various "low-flying" planes in your videos are flying anywhere close to 1-2 feet off the ground?

You support these other "debunkers" on the forum saying it's no problem to fly 1 INCH off the ground?


And you STILL think no one was confused by the wargames on 9/11, which seemed to mirror the attacks themselves?



Since I called you out, if you feel you must respond now, I'm expecting a bunch of rhetoric that doesn't answer any of these questions, but just tries to disperse me again with deflecting. I'm just going to keep at them like a thorn in your side until you actually give an answer that follows the rules of logic, or admit you can do no such thing. Ever. Because you are WRONG.