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: 13
141
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Weedwhacker, once again most of your post is a ranting diatribe attempting to flex your alleged pilot certificate and assume the position of a self-proclaimed Sky God. It's not working.

Let just keep this simple, shall we?

Once again -

Let us know when you find an aircraft which has been positively identified to exceed it's Vmo by 120-150 knots, exceed it's Maneuvering speeds by 220 knots, pulled G's, and was precisely controllable to hit a target with 25'-33' margins for error. Further, let us know when you can find a pilot who can perform such control, yet was unable to control a 172 at 65 knots.

And since the cockpit door topic cropped up in this thread,

Let us know when you have proof the cockpit door was open for a hijack to occur. So far, all the data points to it being closed. You also have no source for your claim that it wasn't hooked up on N644AA because such a source does not exist, rather a Custom made Data Frame Layout provided by American Airlines, suggests it was in operation and recording.

In other words, you have zero evidence, data nor precedent for your theories. All data and information that has been provided, conflicts with your theory.

Finally, please let us know when you have positive identification for the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11 and that they were standard aircraft as manufactured by Boeing.

I'll add more questions as I catch up on your fallacies, misleading, and flat out false statements you have made throughout this thread.


[edit on 22-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]




posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
There is a Dutch documentary about 9/11, was about one hour long, and is broken up into the YouTube "bit-sized" bits. There is a segment floating around, of the one below, that has subtitles in English. This one (Part 4) is what I've found, just in first searches. It IS in Dutch, unfortunately. But, this is an Internation Board, and I'm sure we have some native Dutch speakers out there....

This shows some very average pilots (at least, I think they have SOME flying experience) in a fairly generic full motion simulator re-creating the flights into the Pentagon....three times, each time hitting the target with relative ease.







Dutch Pentagon Attack Recreation A Fraud? - Simulator Not Certified, Not A 757

(Pilotsfor911truth.org) - Some may be aware of a video in which Dutch Researchers at the National Aerospace Laboratory recreate the Pentagon Attack in a flight simulator with what they claim is an "inexperienced pilot", in an attempt to prove that it is "not impossible" for Hani Hajour --the alleged hijacker pilot of American Airlines Flight 77-- to have performed such a maneuver. Others, mostly anonymous, attempt to use this outdated video in a poor attempt to discredit seasoned 757/767 Captains speaking out. Since the release of "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" featuring interviews with 757/767 Captains from United and American Airlines who have attempted to recreate the maneuvers reported on 9/11, Pilots For 9/11 Truth have once again come under fire. Captains from United, American and other airlines have attempted to recreate the maneuvers performed on 9/11 and found it highly unlikely to impossible for any inexperienced pilot to have accomplished such maneuvers (See "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" and "Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77" at pilotsfor911truth.org... for more details).

The Dutch simulation test was performed prior to the release of the Flight Data Recorder information, so clearly the Dutch researchers did not have any scientific data to examine the maneuver, nor implement the maneuver properly. Their main focus was to debunk claims made that the turning maneuver was impossible, which we agree is possible according to the data now released. However, other aspects of the flight path are impossible (See "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" at pilotsfor911truth.org...).



snip




Pilots For 9/11 Truth contacted the National Aerospace Laboratory in the Netherlands in an attempt to clarify some details of this simulator test.

These were the questions asked:

1. Prior to the above simulation, how long has Mr. Ruigrok worked for NLR and in what capacity?

2. Prior to above simulation, how much total flight time did Mr. Ruigrok have logged? In what type aircraft? How much time in a 757 Flight simulator?

3. Your video states Mr. Ruigrok has flight time in flight simulators and light aircraft as did Hani Hanjour, the reported Hijacker/pilot of American Airlines Flight 77. As Mr Ruigrok enters the simulator in the video, the narrator goes on to state Mr Ruigrok had some "practice" as "Hani probably did too". How much practice did Mr Ruigrok have flying the maneuver prior to videotaping the maneuver?

4. The speed used for the simulation was stated as 800 km/h. This is 30 knots less than the speeds reported by the 9/11 Commission. Do you have any video tape showing the airspeed during the acceleration to the Pentagon?

5. We noticed the crash logic on your simulator was disabled for this test, or it was not installed. We also notice the over speed warnings were not operating as normal if in fact Mr Ruigrok exceeded Vmo. At what speed over Vmo is the crash logic usually triggered on the simulator used? (red screens, simulator freezes.. .etc)

6. Was the simulator used in this test certified to Level D Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Standards?


See Source for full article and replies to above questions.
pilotsfor911truth.org...



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



I think this is a good time to have the audience ponder something.

Specifically, to consider the "claims" by the bloke who provides the fodder for this thread's OP, as well as the (very, very few) 'professional' pilots who lend their names to "PilotsFor9/11Truth".

In view of the fact (and anyone can look up the numbers) there are three major pilot's associations (AKA 'unions') in the United States alone --- ALPA, American Airlines' APA (Allied Pilots Assoc.) and Southwest Airline's SWPA....***(OH! I should amend a post, above....about the guy in Phoenix!!! Gee...had a brain hemorrage, I guess! Completely forgot about Southwest, ALSO headquartered in PHX!!! So, the guy in Tiffany's/PfT's video MIGHT have been a WN simulator instructor. Which means, he likely has NEVER flown the 757/767...just a passing guess, there).

Anyway, where was I?? Oh, yes....with tens of THOUSANDS of commercial airlines pilots, in the US alone....I ask this:

WHY isn't the membership roster at "PilotsFor9/11Truth" much, much larger??"



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Off-topic response self deleted.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
WHY isn't the membership roster at "PilotsFor9/11Truth" much, much larger??"




Anytime you wish to address the question of this topic, let us know weedwhacker -

Let us know when you find an aircraft which has been positively identified to exceed it's Vmo by 120-150 knots, exceed it's Maneuvering speeds by 220 knots, pulled G's, and was precisely controllable to hit a target with 25'-33' margins for error. Further, let us know when you can find a pilot who can perform such control, yet was unable to control a 172 at 65 knots.

And since the cockpit door topic cropped up in this thread,

Let us know when you have proof the cockpit door was open for a hijack to occur. So far, all the data points to it being closed. You also have no source for your claim that it wasn't hooked up on N644AA because such a source does not exist, rather a Custom made Data Frame Layout provided by American Airlines, suggests it was in operation and recording.

In other words, you have zero evidence, data nor precedent for your theories. All data and information that has been provided, conflicts with your theory.

Finally, please let us know when you have positive identification for the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11 and that they were standard aircraft as manufactured by Boeing.


To answer your question (which has been explained to you ad nauseam but repeatedly slips your mind apparently) -

ALPA has been in existence for 70+ years and represents roughly 9% of the pilot population. It is the largest and most powerful Pilot Union on the planet. Does that mean 91% of pilots disagree with ALPA?

Pilots For Truth is coming up on 4 years in existence. You do the math.

But it is interesting to note that Pilots For Truth currently has a faster growth rate than ALPA.


And from what I understand, many pilots prefer to not list their names on a website, because as many can see in just this thread alone, anonymous people like you prefer libel over debating the facts. They just don't want to deal with the headache if they can avoid it. I suppose this is why you never place your name to your claims as well?



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




WHY isn't the membership roster at "PilotsFor9/11Truth" much, much larger??"


I can answer that question for you, WW.

Because the pilots for truth are the laughingstock of the aviation community. Most other pilots are standing around pointing and laughing!



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Because the pilots for truth are the laughingstock of the aviation community. Most other pilots are standing around pointing and laughing!


So you know pilots who actually believe aircraft can exceed their Vmo by 150 knots, their maneuvering speed by 220, pull G's and remain controllable by a flunky with zero time in type, couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots, and hit a target with a 25-33' margin for error?

Really?

Got any names?

Didn't think so.

It's interesting to note that pilots who have no affiliation with Pilots For 9/11 Truth, who are regular members here at ATS, agree with P4T findings when alerted to the information. I think 5 or 6 came out in this thread trying to explain why claims made by the govt were so absurd, to weedwacker and company.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hey Boone, do you have any flight time? Your avatar suggests you may?

If you have so much faith in the OS, please take an aircraft at 120-150 knots over it's Max operating, at any altitude... be sure to file a VFR flight plan (if not IFR) so S&R can find you when you don't show up back to the airport. Let us know when you depart as well as I'd like to search for the prelim NTSB report on the following days..



When comparing apples to apples (unlike the logical fallacy often repeated by weedwhacker et al) --

The amount of pilots who claim aircraft control is possible at such excessive speeds over it's manufacturer set limits, and also place their name to such a claim = Big fat goose egg, zero, zilch, nada!



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Patriotgal
Gotta agree with this one!!!
1. Those airplanes, are NOT designed, for THAT much speed, at THAT altitude (the air, is too THICK!)
2. Those aircraft, are NOT aerobatic!! Those tight turns, would likely tear the wings/tail off, leading to a nose-down dive!
3. It took me SEVERAL practices, in a Leer 24, to be able to do a simple loop, around the Golden gate bridge. And, I, am an experienced aerobatic pilot! (Yes, in a simulater!!- i want to KEEP my ticket!)
4. The flight, that "hit" the Pentagon- supposedly, flew three (?) times, over DC, looking for the Capital???? WTF??? Washington Monument, Mall, Capital- one HUGE landmark! Were they BLIND??


Anther pilot who isn't affiliated with P4T who gets it.

Good job Patriotgal.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


you know none of what you are stating as evidence is true right ?

if it was people with real credentials would be calling but keep up the good fight you 9/11 people crack me up..



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Weedwhacker, once again most of your post is a ranting diatribe attempting to flex your alleged pilot certificate and assume the position of a self-proclaimed Sky God. It's not working.

Let just keep this simple, shall we?


Well well....look who's back - the airline Captain Tiffany. Standing up for your former roommate, we see.

You can add the "it is impossible for aircraft to fly that fast" into the same category of "the cockpit door never opened" and your classic "when an aircraft reaches its design limit, it breaks. Period" tag lines.

While we're at it, why don't you explain why you think a 5 or 10 pound RC aircraft traveling 20 feet per second will demonstrate the exact same crash characteristics as a 90-ton 757 traveling at 750 feet per second?

Faster and funnier, Cap't!



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Well well....look who's back - the airline Captain Tiffany. Standing up for your former roommate, we see.


*SNIP*

Hey trebor, since your ilk constantly dodge this issue, perhaps you can answer?

I'll paste it here for you again.

(try not to snip it this time from your reply)

Let us know when you find an aircraft which has been positively identified to exceed it's Vmo by 120-150 knots, exceed it's Maneuvering speeds by 220 knots, pulled G's, and was precisely controllable to hit a target with 25'-33' margins for error. Further, let us know when you can find a pilot who can perform such control, yet was unable to control a 172 at 65 knots.

And since the cockpit door topic cropped up in this thread,

Let us know when you have proof the cockpit door was open for a hijack to occur. So far, all the data points to it being closed. You also have no source for your claim that it wasn't hooked up on N644AA because such a source does not exist, rather a Custom made Data Frame Layout provided by American Airlines, suggests it was in operation and recording.

In other words, you have zero evidence, data nor precedent for your theories. All data and information that has been provided, conflicts with your theory.

Finally, please let us know when you have positive identification for the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11 and that they were standard aircraft as manufactured by Boeing.

Good luck!

[edit on 23-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]


Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Mon Aug 23 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
[Let us know when you find an aircraft which has been positively identified to exceed it's Vmo by 120-150 knots, exceed it's Maneuvering speeds by 220 knots, pulled G's, and was precisely controllable to hit a target with 25'-33' margins for error. Further, let us know when you can find a pilot who can perform such control, yet was unable to control a 172 at 65 knots.


Can you please explain just how any of this contradicts the multitudes of eyewitnesses in the vicinity of the Pentagon who specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the building?

Eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack

Plus, the black box was recovered from the Pentagon site which identified it as AA77, and we know it's legitimate becuase Pilots for 9/11 truth are using the flight recorder data religiously for their claims.

I don't know what you intended to prove with this bean counting, but the only thing you've managed to prove is that you're getting so desperate for actual tangible evidence to back your conspiracy stories up that you're resorting to bickering over every nut, bolt, and door hinge within the 9/11 attack looking for signs of impropriety you're "so sure" has to be there. Even then, all you have is innuendo dropping.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Can you please explain just how any of this contradicts the multitudes of eyewitnesses in the vicinity of the Pentagon who specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the building?


Can you please show us proof such aircraft was N644AA AND a standard 757? Please start with providing the parts/serial numbers, parts themselves and maintenance logs. The FBI seem to be refusing access to such information for all four aircraft reportedly used on 9/11 because they themselves actually don't have it as they never positively identified any of the aircraft.

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I., To Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

FBI Refuses To Confirm Identities, Of 4 Aircraft Used During 9/11 Attacks

As for your linked "witnesses" -

Witnesses List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses

National Security alert

Also, it is physically impossible to cause the physical damage at the Pentagon from the path observed and corroborated by numerous independent witnesses.

NORTH APPROACH IMPACT ANALYSIS


Plus, the black box was recovered from the Pentagon site which identified it as AA77,


Wrong.

Can the Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location Of Flight Data Recorder

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's

9/11 Aircraft 'black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent


and we know it's legitimate becuase[sic] Pilots for 9/11 truth are using the flight recorder data religiously for their claims.


Clearly you haven't even researched the claims made by Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

Start on their home page and the Press releases linked on the left margin.

Again,

Let us know when you find an aircraft which has been positively identified to exceed it's Vmo by 120-150 knots, exceed it's Maneuvering speeds by 220 knots, pulled G's, and was precisely controllable to hit a target with 25'-33' margins for error. Further, let us know when you can find a pilot who can perform such control, yet was unable to control a 172 at 65 knots.

Thanks!

(To the mods, I apologize for linking so many sources, but it is pertinent to thoroughly refute the claims made by GoodOlDave. If you feel it is spam, please U@U and allow me to remove the links and just ask people to google the titles. Thank you for your understanding)



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


hey these people only fail to understand the most basic logic they do not see any middle ground truther is another word for ignorant of course most Americans beleive we were deceived but this crazy crapola with evidence is purely dellusional and your right they honestly beleive they have real evidence the problem is its not real or evidence and they spend their logic trying to manipulate wht reasonable people say by contorting certain parts of phrases or the infamous you tube videos as proof come on people wake up . !!!

they will always be out there weedwhacker there is no hope for reason here but it is fun to try



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by triplescorpio
hey these people only fail to understand the most basic logic they do not see any middle ground truther is another word for ignorant of course most Americans beleive we were deceived but this crazy crapola with evidence is purely dellusional and your right they honestly beleive they have real evidence the problem is its not real or evidence and they spend their logic trying to manipulate wht reasonable people say by contorting certain parts of phrases or the infamous you tube videos as proof come on people wake up . !!!

they will always be out there weedwhacker there is no hope for reason here but it is fun to try


The evidence -

NTSB Data - Used in a court of law all the time.
www.ntsb.gov...

Witnesses - Used in a court of law daily
citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Survivors/Witnesses - appealing current ruling in a court of law.
www.centerfor911justice.org...

The experts/credentials - Used in a court of law daily
patriotsquestion911.com...

There is much more, but that should be good enough to get you started.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


but its not real i do respect your perseverance wow i killed that word lol

your right tho its a free forum we are in so hey bad on me i guess but this 9/11 stuff is pure wack a doo nonsense of course there were lies but its gone toooooo farrr into fantasy land..



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by triplescorpio
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


but its not real i do respect your perseverance wow i killed that word lol


Data provided by a govt agency tasked to ensure the safety of the traveling public is not "real"?


I think weedwhacker and a few others disagree with you.


All these experts are not real?
patriotsquestion911.com...

April Gallop, a pentagon survivor who walked out of the hole in the Pentagon holding her child, is not real?

[edit on 23-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



controllable to hit a target with 25'-33' margins for error.


Hold on a minute - how do you know what the traget was? Did you brief the hijackers?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


dude shes solved the conspiracy and is going before congress tommorrow!!!!!!
were u not breifed??? lol







 
141
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join