It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 09:22 PM
i think this is important
1. 747 boiengs have hyrolic acuated flight serfaces that are controlled by a computer processor
2.this processor smooths out piolet imput to the wings and tail flaps
3. you cannot turn on a dime pull up in a few feet or roll in a short space of time
4.stresses on the airframe are limited by processor to stay under a predescribed limit

i doubt weather any piolet can recreate these manovers without by passing this system
the hijackers would not have been able to bypass this processor
the plane is capable of this manuver but only with previous modifycations
the most likely reason these planes hit was some form of lazer guiding system tapped directly into the processor making litterly thousands of course corrections a second

human piolets flighing a normal 747 cannot carry out these sudden sharp corrections and the computer processor in control will not allow the output changes required to garenty a hit as this was nessacery to the whole callaspe plan


[edit on 14-8-2010 by XPLodER]

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 09:31 PM
" More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. "

Did you people miss this part ? Did you even read it ? How about comprehension , did any of you comprehend what this statement says ?

Here , I'll make it easy for you ... more than 2/3 of those who tried it couldn't do it .

But , guess what class ? 2/3 DOES NOT mean 100% . Therefore , there were some of those in this experiment who DID INDEED master the task and replicate the manuvers and skill needed to accomplish the 'impossible' flight navigation carried out by the highjackers .

You guys must have missed that part ? But , there it is , right there in the OP . Read it again , real slow .

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 09:33 PM
Holograms, holographs never could fly through buildings.....and inflict damage.

A pause for thought.....

On your other hand, when used responsibly, they will be the instructor's preferred Tool for 'higher' learning in the near future and the dreamers escape to a new ~realm~ at the helm of being.

Creation Is ⏿ though in m0tion.
In other 'words' your helm is what you make it and your realm, the result.

Looking Forward not for-wOrds.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Perseus Apex]

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 09:52 PM
I remember hearing that one of the hijackers was a student at Florida Institute of Technology, a high profile aeronautics college that caters to Mid East money. It is a really good school and very close to my home. This may be why I heard it though and it is just conjecture. We even call it foreign intsitute of tech because they have such a high volume of middle easterners.

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 09:57 PM

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.

That is correct. A phenomena called "ground effect" would make it extremely difficult to fly such a heavy plane with a low wing loading at such a high speed that low above the ground. Fighter and attack jets are designed with a high wing loading and thus they are able to perform the stunts at airshows to fly past the crowds at a few ft above the runway. It is a stunning and impressive act, but can't be copied with a 757.
Those of you who may be regular air-travelers will have on occasion experienced this "ground effect" when a pilot for what ever reason miscalculates his landing speed and approaches too fast. Then the sensation is that the plane seems to be "floating" for ever over the runway till it finally bleeds off the excessive speed and settles its wheels onto the pavement.
The 2 planes hitting the WTC is not to be disputed, but it can be said with pretty much 100% certainty that they were NOT piloted by people who could not even manage a Cessna 172. The Pentagon was definitely NOT hit by a 757.
A bit of a fact concerning aircraft crashes: The 2 planes hitting the WTC, well it's obvious that nothing is left of them. However any "normal crash" - and any news pictures on sees of a crash, ONE thing always stands out, namely the TAIL of the aircraft. This is almost always that remains pretty much in one piece after a crash. Either it rips off because it is the 1st to get ground contact or it simply survives because it is the last piece of the plane experiencing any impact, - either or, the tail remains in one piece 95% of times. So where is this tail of the 757 at the Pentagon?
A little information on the Cessna 172 and its smaller "Sister" the 150. Many flight instructors are divided in what is the best plane to train a new pilot. The Cessna 150 & 172 series are the so called "VW of the Air" - meaning that almost anyone with a bit of brains can manage this plane. The landing speed on the Ce-150 & 172 is very "stretchable", - meaning you do not have to be exactly at 45kts flare out speed, you can do it anywhere between 35 to 50 kts. This is what many instructors see as a problem since it teaches students "not to care too much about the correct speed", which then becomes deadly once the student progresses to higher performance aircraft. Remember the Baseball player or what ever who flew his plane into a NYC apartment building? He too was a Ce-172 trained pilot that then invested in a much more powerful and more skill demanding aircraft, and subsequently got killed. Some flight instructors, I am one of them, prefer planes for their 1st time students that have a set speed without much of a lee-way for "playing with the numbers". These planes are harder to train on in the beginning but instill a discipline in the novice pilot that will make it easier for him to transition later on to more complex aircraft.
So what the OP meant in this article is that "IF" these terrorists could not even fly a Cessna, then there is no way they could manage a 757, even with simulator training.
To play devils advocate, the ONLY way they could have done it would have been that they had been in reality ex air-force pilots and commercial pilots and had just played "dumb" before their flight instructors to throw them off the radar for the FBI.


posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 10:01 PM
reply to post by Doctor G

This guy here here seems to think that it IS possible :

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 10:05 PM
I'm sitting here right now with my Dad and brother who are both commercial airline pilots and say this article is complete crap. Both made the statement that the landing approach into the old Hong Kong airport was much more difficult and successful 99.9999% of the time.

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 10:07 PM
I don't think this necessarily implies holograms or anything else exotic.

I personally lean towards the idea that the planes were operated by some sort of computer guidance system, but that is really beside the point.

The point is that it seems implausible for these alleged terrorist pilots, who were amateurs at best, to have carried of these complex maneuvers successfully.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by MrVertigo]

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 10:10 PM
reply to post by Guenter

" To play devils advocate, the ONLY way they could have done it would have been that they had been in reality ex air-force pilots and commercial pilots and had just played "dumb" before their flight instructors to throw them off the radar for the FBI. "

That could also be a possibility although , I don't think it is the ONLY way they could have done it .

[edit on 14-8-2010 by okbmd]

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by YouCanCallMeKM

As the video started, I thought I'd seen it before, but this is new to me.

Wow. I'd urge everyone to watch.

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 10:39 PM

Originally posted by johnny2127
I'm sitting here right now with my Dad and brother who are both commercial airline pilots and say this article is complete crap. Both made the statement that the landing approach into the old Hong Kong airport was much more difficult and successful 99.9999% of the time.

What they might have forgotten to mention is that for old Hong Kong airport airlines had specially trained and route cleared crews. The same held true for crews going into Seoul South Korea due to the proximity to the DMZ and the risk of NK air-space violation, specific training and only a select few pilots of the respective airlines are cleared for these airports. There are several other extremely dangerous to approach airports and the respective crews are trained extra just for these routes. On top of it you said it as well, they are talking "approach" 275kts holding or approach speed or less. A lot different than 400kts head on hitting the "target".


posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 10:43 PM
I have just watched the Disclose TV film, and feel no more persuaded by the no-planes theory than I was before I saw this version of said theory.
This has been suggected before, only originally it was a missile that was allegedly in the NBC helicopter video, and that missile was barely visible for a fraction of it's journey across the camera's field of view. The missile became the pod under Flight 175's fuselage, 175 being a projection locked onto the missile.
Now it's a ball, only the presenter fails to explain how his ball has suddenly become a pod when seen 'attached' to the plane. He is very precise about it's dimensions yet completely fails to explain the sudden change of shape. He also seems to have calculated the ball's speed very precisely - 221mph - whereas Pilots for 9/11 Truth have Flight 175's speed as 587mph ( and are claiming this makes it unlikely to have been a conventional non-reinforced commercial airliner).
He also proposes that using a secret Pentagon anti-gravity UAV is more feasible than using a plane: truthers have already gone into some detail of how using a plane would have been feasible and their theory is quite persuasive. This guy seems to be unaware of that theory, or is at least not prepared to acknowledge it because he can't explain why it is less feasible than his own.
One other thing :- the claim that the nose of the plane is seen emerging from the opposite side of the tower because the video manipulators edited their layers wrong. Whatever that may be , it doesn't actually look much like the nose of a 767.
i am atruther , but the np planes theory just doesn't work. this is yet another example of somebody entering the debate without having checked out the history of the evidence first.

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by johnny2127

I have seen the landing video's for Hong Kong and that is one messed up airport to land at.

One opinion out there is the planes were piloted via remote control by very skilled pilots via the mystery planes flying over Washington and New York. This argument has substance since the terroist were 3 for 3 for piloting planes into their targets, and they could barely fly a single engine very well; The fourth plane is suspected of being shot down.

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 10:56 PM
Out of curiosity is anyone taking into account that this is not the first terror attack on the WTC, but actually the 2nd?

First Trade Center Attack - 1993

I have not really seen any conspiracy theories for that attack (WTC-1993).

The players listed in that attack are current Al Queida members in the top echelon (well whats left of it). The guy suggesting in the video that it was some type of anti gravity drone, including the reasons for using it (more people involved the harder to carry out) I think leaves out some key points.

Couldnt the argument be made that using some advanced device, then photo shoppping the videos, is riskier than hijacking actual planes? The risk of being discovered would be even greater by using drones and photoshopping planes over them.

Then you have to deal with the number of "people" on the planes. I would think it would be easier to have them go down in a hijacked plane than it would be for the government to liquidate them. You would run a massive liability that someone would see these planes land, off load people, and have them spirited away by Governemnt forces. The passengers have cell phones that could have been used to expose what was going on (if they were being taken by the Government).

Then the Ground:

There would be no conceivable way to control the number of people on the ground who saw it with their own eyes from repeating their stories, which many many people did.

Then we have the attacks on the US embassies in Africa in 1998 - Linked to Al Queida.

The attack on the USS Cole by Al queida.

While it would be one thing to subscribe to a conspiracy theory that this was orchestrated solely by the Bush administration, its hard to get past the fact it wasnt the first attack on US intrests by Al Queida.

In order for this to work, the conspiracy would have to span the Clinton years as well, as he was president during some of these attacks. Clinton ordered a cruise missile strike to take bin laden out during his presidency as well.

I think a conspiracy of this magnitude, spanning 16 years, 2 presidents, agency directors, military plans etc would never make it. Not to mention the number of Foriegn intelligence services that could possibly have information pertaining to any part of that operation, and again the Governments inability to control them.

I still believe that the re-creation failures by the professionals is not conclusive that an untrained pilot could not do it. It is impossible to account for every single variable that took place that morning.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 10:59 PM
reply to post by Bigfoot73

Well, to start with, he does explain how the ball suddenly gets attached to the plane. He explains it quite well, actually.

As far as the rest of your argument, feasibility isn't what I'm looking for.
I'm looking for the truth of what happened, and the disclosure of that truth.

I've always thought that the pods were the remote control for the drones, now I see another possibility.

I'm not asking you or anyone else to "believe". I do, however, think this video deserves a more critical and open minded analysis than you gave it.

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:05 PM
reply to post by Krzyzmo

There is a huge difference in terms of what the training instructors have said about the hijackers piloting skills. When they were going through Flight training, they were not going through it as if they were going into that field.

So when the instructors point out that they could barely pilot a cessna, the instructor is looking at it from the point that these people want to become professional pilots, and not terrorists.

On the flip side the terrorists were only paying attention to those aspects that their mission required.

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:06 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

No offense intended, but... Have you ever heard of the Bohemian Grove?

These guys have been up to no good for years and years. Generations, some of them.

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:18 PM
reply to post by Dogdish

Yeah I have, and no offense taken
.. I just dont think that a conspiracy of this magnitude could be pulled off, even by the people in attendcance at that place. The people who orchestrate these things are rarely the ones who actually carry it out.

For that you need some mid level handlers to make the arrangements. In turn they have their own contacts who would be the ones to carry this off. Those people, imo, are the ones who cannot think for themsleves, so blindly follow what they are told to do.

The problem with that is they dont always make the right decision when its needed, giving the possibility of the entire operation failing, and exposing this group.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:20 PM
To me this doesn't prove anything about there not being any planes, ie holograms or whatever, not even computer controlled.... Just that the guys or gals who did it, definately had MUCHO flight experience. To me this rules out the "terrorists" who took a few classes on a flight simulator theory. Therefore the question, for me at least, is who, not what.

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:35 PM
I'm not sure what this means in regards to the twin towers but in regards to the Pentagon, it is quite significant.

Remember, there is very little "hand flying" of an airliner. Once in the air, it's mostly auto-pilot. Even the landings can be fully automated if the airport is equipped for it. ILS approaches can get you quite close to the ground. However, hand-landing an airliner with any degree of accuracy takes much more skill than flying at altitude.

The fact that the Pentagon pilot hit his target and never scraped the ground would be equivalent to setting down that same plane on a runway within +/- 100' or less. Any lower and he would have skidded on the ground, any higher and he could have skipped off the top of the building. Not to mention, that "pilot" hand flew that plane for approximately 45 minutes, quite accurately I might add. The flight data that was released indicated a very smooth flight path without a lot of oscillations. That in itself is very difficult to do, even for an experience pilot. Hand flying with any degree of accuracy and without a lot of correction/over-correction is difficult. Period.

Again, that fact comes into play with the pentagon because the target was relatively small. As far as the towers go, I don't know how it would come into play given the size of the targets and room for error.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in