9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

page: 4
141
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
I know I am going regret even asking but, what is this suppose to mean? The pilots did hit the towers. So it could be and was done. Or is this one those theories that planes were holograms, remote controled fakes, mass hypnosis etc? I always find all these theories fasinating as they all present so much evidence that seems to cut the legs out from the other theories. So in this scenerio the planes did not hit the towers, is that correct?


no thats not correct...you have mis-read his thread...i think what hes saying is that fully trained and highly experienced pilotes couldnt hit those towers in a simulator 60% of the time so what are the chances of some inexperienced untrained terrorists doing it.

hes saying the planes werent flew by terrorists...they still hit the towers...but terrorists didnt do it!




posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by keepureye2thesky
So was the second plane I watched with my own 2 eyes being flown by remote
control or were the PTB infiltrating my brain so that I would see a hologram?


why are so many people mis-reading the op?

your post trying to make him sound stupid makes you look ridiculous because thats not what hes saying at all...read my post just above to see what he meant.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   
What a load of rubbish this whole concept is. People seem to forget that not only did the planes hitting the towers get filmed on TV, and I know you can't trust film, but thousands and thousands of New Yorkers saw the planes hit as well. Holograms? Remote control planes? This is getting to far fetched now to be even close to sane.

Fact is, planes hit those towers. I have no doubt about that. But I still don't trust the way the towers came down. That's that part I think has been done to death, and the tin foil wearers are looking for a new and interesting angle on the whole 9/11 thing. But this time they are scraping the barrel is you ask me.

Give up in these stupid no planes theory and concentrate on the things that have hard evidence, and not some poorly shot video footage.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   
What really got me thinking outside of the box about 9/11 was when I was shown that beyond all shadow of doubt, the aircraft that hit the second tower was not a civilian aircraft. It was proven to me by Spanish investigators that the aircraft that hit the second tower was a military aircraft. How ? Notice that the left side engine is off set at a strange angle. Notice that this is so as to aerodynamically compensate for the air drag created by the outstanding bulges on the right side of the fuselage. These attributes are indicative of the fact that the aircraft that hit the second tower was a modified version. Certainly not civilian. In deed it was a Navy Reconnaissance aircraft, to be exact to do with Sonar Anti Submarine Warfare. This type of aircraft was decommissioned during the 1990's, being largely replaced by satellites looking in from space. So that the aircraft was supposed to have been sent to a scrap yard. However, it appears to have been fitted out for remote control, and then flown by computers and radio control into the second tower. We can therefore speculate that what ever flew into the first tower was of a similar nature and origin.

Likewise what is it that hit the Pentagon ? From evidences brought to my attention it would appear that a redundant, supposed to have been scraped, Navy Fighter Jet is what hit the Pentagon. All fingers are pointing in the direction of 9/11 being an inside job. Why ? Gold robbery ? No one ever stops to mention or even think about the huge amounts of Gold that went missing that morning.

Another interesting thing about 9/11 is the way in which the towers collapsed in on their own foot print in only 9 or 10 seconds. That is scientifically, engineeringly impossible, and yet it happened. How ? My speculation is that the USA military using "Magnetic Disruption", a classified ultra secret weapon system originally developed by Nicola Tesla, was used to cause every atom of the steel structure to separate from every other atom. Thus the entire structure just dropped down the way it did. Those free atoms then went blowing in the wind reacting with oxygen along the way. Creating the immense heat in the process. Only this can explain the observed events of 9/11/2001.

What I am suggesting is that the USA military are sick in their head. Drugged insanity. They are psychopathic violence and the world needs to wake up to the truth so that something can be done about that problem. However, to suggest that the problem is only the USA is obviously absurd. Needless to say the problem is militarism in all its entirety. The solution is to abandon trusting in violence. Impossible ? It is the choice that each individual must make, or not as the case may be.

[edit on 15/8/2010 by CAELENIUM]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWretched
 


OMG did you not just read the post right above yours before posting

No one is saying it is holograms of course the planes hit the towers surely any rational person knows this

[edit on 15-8-2010 by eyeswilldeceive]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by onthedownlow
Maybe it is hard to believe the 9-11 truthers because they come up with the most absurd theories. The problem is, they believe what they want to believe. We all have agendas, what is the agenda of those who spread these crazy 9-11 theories?
They would like us to believe that steel does not melt and that planes cant be flown in the particular manner in which they were flown. What would it take to pull off an operation of this magnitude? Ninteen highjackers if we are to believe that it happened the way that it appears to have happened. Now, how many people would have to be involved to make it happen the way the truthers would have us believe it happened? A demo crew, could be as small as four or five guys. A security detail that would have to be quite large to help seal off the lower floors. Twenty fake highjackers that were willing to take a suicide mission to kill Americans. A large technical crew to cordinate the operation. And a rather large group capable of killing all the witnesses and make them look like suicides or accidents. Doesn't seem to likely to me,but plausible I suppose.
What would it take for a group to spread misinformation and create public distrust of the government? I suppose it would take one guy and a bunch of fools that wanted to believe. That sounds a little more likely, but who would want to spread antigovernment sentiment? Any political faction with an antidemocratic agenda? Some aggrieved hippies. Any foreign government with any means to express disinformation propoganda? Anyone with an antigovernment agenda, etc.?
Who's brainwashed?


That is a poor representation of the reality of the situation. It would not, as you say, take merely 19 hijackers with a bit of luck. What you're doing wrong is improperly using Occam's Razor.

At first glance I suppose, it seems like 19 hijackers, 4 planes hijacked, 3 targets hit and 1 failed. However there is far more to this picture. You're neglecting dozens of facts which directly contradict the fact that it was "just" 19 hijackers. I'll name a couple off the top of my head.

1) Norad training exercises which were being conducted at that exact time, using exactly the same scenarios - crashing hijacked planes into buildings. To know this and plan ahead of time accordingly, they would REQUIRE some kind of connection to classified US military information, which has never been adequately explained. Norad training operations are not something you can just phone up and inquire about.

2) Building 7. A plane never hit it. NIST admits free-fall for 2.5 seconds, impossible without all the support columns failing simultaneously, which is statistically just a hair short of impossible, and given the nature of the damage to the building, virtually impossible.

3) Intelligence connections to a few of the hijackers. Mohamed Atta did not fit the profile of a suicide bomber - at all - and instead has several links to US and Pakistani intelligence agencies.

4) Some of the 19 hijackers were reportedly still alive after the event, and made several grievances with US embassies which were never officially dealt with let alone explained to the public.

So it's not just as simple as you paint it to be. That is my problem with so-called "debunkers" - their explanations seem to categorically wreak of confirmation bias.

"Truthers" are not a club. It's similar to the Tea Party - hundreds of different types of people from all walks of life, with no centralized, agreed-upon theory on what exactly is wrong, or what exactly should be done about it. The only thing that unites truthers is that they know the OS is wrong. They don't know what DID happen, but they know what did NOT happen.

I like how you're approaching the situation, with a critical eye. But I think you've been looking at all the wrong information, or at least coming to illogical conclusions.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CAELENIUM
 


you might be right about the gold but i also think it was to invade the middle east for a number of reasons,as well as benefitting as much as possible from other areas such as more control over american citizens and so on



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by CAELENIUM
 


After reading this thread and reading your theories, IMO there was (if there such a thing) programed coordinates like "auto pilot" I think there probably is.

I don't know if auto pilot goes into "fail mode" if it cannot keep the plane on the designated course, thus telling the pilots to take over.

I seems each plane made a direct hit, (any higher or lower the towers would fall to the side) that would burn and weaken "those floors" in order to create a pancake or domino effect that would drop the towers.

Uncanny- I will go now and investigate for myself the planes themselves, and of course the source you provided.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   
mistake

[edit on 15-8-2010 by eyeswilldeceive]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
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

conclusion
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

xp


[edit on 14-8-2010 by XPLodER]


What you are describing in the first part of your post is a fully "fly-by-wire" system, which the 747 does not have. By the way, why are you even talking about the 747? That was not what the OP was about. The aircraft in question was the 757/767 type. I happen to have FAA type ratings for both the 747 and 757/767. The 757/767 does have a fully autonomous system with software that limits g-forces which i in your post.s what I think you were trying to get at in your post. The 747 does not have that software.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



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


What else is there to call it? Bull #? Malarky? Meecrob?



It must be nice to live in a world where you know everything there is to know, and learned it all by setting at your computer typing things out on a web forum.

But reality is a vicious over lord. Your facts don't add up. A few pilots claim they can't do it? Or they simply won't?

Do a blind study, conducted in an unbiased manner, and leave the truther bull # where it can't be seen, and see how easily people start flying fake airplanes into buildings.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


When flying into a airport you have someone in the tower telling you the info you need to land safely. These hijackers didn't have that. Even the guy that trained them to fly the Cessna said they couldn't have done it.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silicis n Volvo

Originally posted by keepureye2thesky
So was the second plane I watched with my own 2 eyes being flown by remote
control or were the PTB infiltrating my brain so that I would see a hologram?


why are so many people mis-reading the op?

your post trying to make him sound stupid makes you look ridiculous because thats not what hes saying at all...read my post just above to see what he meant.


Not mis-reading the OP, just asking for further clarification. I need to make
sure my brain was not infiltrated that morning and that it was indeed remote
control. Read my post again chum, my first question was, "Was the second
plane I watched with my own 2 eyes being flown by remote control"?!
Clarification is all I request sir. I look no more ridiculous than you. We're
here for answers right?



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I knew I would regret asking before. So lets see what we have so far. We have the planes not real people, it was a hologram or a fake plane etc. We have the planes are real people but, the planes were flown by highly trained pilots, by remote control, they were missles, or they were military aircraft. Do I have most of it? The crews and passengers either did not exist, are being held or were killed. The people who did it were Mid-east terrorist working for Israel, the CIA or some other Agency or they were not working for them but they were allowed to do it. Or no terrorist were involved at all and it was all done by remote control and explosives or covert agents from some other group. And the towers were not taken down not by planes but by missles or explosives. Instead of just saying terrorist blew up the towers like they tried to do the first time the CIA, NWO, Jews etc. decided to make things way more complicated and ad in some planes. Then they also hit the Pentagon with a missle or something just for the hell of it I guess. And the motives, well depend on who did it I guess. It fasinates me that so many theories, each with "experts" and "evidence" are so vastly different. Why is that?



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
I know I am going regret even asking but, what is this suppose to mean? The pilots did hit the towers. So it could be and was done. Or is this one those theories that planes were holograms, remote controled fakes, mass hypnosis etc?


Another "option/theory" may be that the planes were pre-programmed via auto-pilot to hit the buildings. Imo airplanes did not hit the towers; purely speculative based on the lack of evidence for planes crashing in Pennsylvania or the Pentagon.

But I think the main point of this thread is to add to the fact that the MSM/gov story is not true, by highlighting that low-experience trained pilots (as the terrorists are described) could not have done what is alleged, if highly trained pilots struggled. I think it would be great to just convince more Americans of that.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by BenIndaSun]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The exact same comments were made about Aloha Flight 243, where the roof of the plane ripped of at 24k feet. The plane wa able to land safely with 1 casualty (Stewardess was killed).

The scenario was used as a training device, and no pilot has yet to make a safe landing or keep it in the air.

Every once in a great blue moon, what appears to be impoissible upon recreation, is in fact possible when forces and circumstances beyond our control enter the equation, then disappear.

Aloha Flight 243



In theory, a Boeing 737 with roughly one-third of its roof blown off should not be able to fly.

Read more: www.time.com...


The other thing to keep in mind is the fact professional pilots were trying to do this. I would assume that being professioanl pilots they would not "push" the palne as far as the hijackers did. The professioanl pilots would in the back of their mind, even though it just a simulation, act and maneuver the simulator as professional pilots.

The hijackers had nothing to loose. It was a one way trip... Diferent mindset.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Xcathdra] - issues getting external quote / link

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Xcathdra] - Spelling

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Xcathdra]


blah blah blah... your argument is great and believable....until you come to terms with one simple FACT.... we are not talking about just ONE plane. Your argument makes perfect sense for ONE plane, ONE hijacker. Sadly we are talking about FOUR planes... FOUR different pilots. The chances now went from believable... to complete and total bullcrap multiplied by four.

Let us look at YOUR own example of Aloha Flight 243. You proved it could happen because it DID happen... now try to do that 3 out of 4 times, on the same day, with 4 different pilots. Now tell me what your chances of success just became.....

[edit on 15-8-2010 by MrWendal]

[edit on 15-8-2010 by MrWendal]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
I knew I would regret asking before. So lets see what we have so far. We have the planes not real people, it was a hologram or a fake plane etc. We have the planes are real people but, the planes were flown by highly trained pilots, by remote control, they were missles, or they were military aircraft. Do I have most of it? The crews and passengers either did not exist, are being held or were killed. The people who did it were Mid-east terrorist working for Israel, the CIA or some other Agency or they were not working for them but they were allowed to do it. Or no terrorist were involved at all and it was all done by remote control and explosives or covert agents from some other group. And the towers were not taken down not by planes but by missles or explosives. Instead of just saying terrorist blew up the towers like they tried to do the first time the CIA, NWO, Jews etc. decided to make things way more complicated and ad in some planes. Then they also hit the Pentagon with a missle or something just for the hell of it I guess. And the motives, well depend on who did it I guess. It fasinates me that so many theories, each with "experts" and "evidence" are so vastly different. Why is that?


Well that is what we call speculation.... people will always come up with ideas and theories. What you fail to realize... and fail very well at.... is that no one has to prove how it was done, just that the probability that 3 out of 4 planes hit their targets is very much improbable.

Fact: NORAD had a very large amount of money provided by the Government for their budget in order to function on the 9/11

Fact: NORAD failed.

Fact: No one was held accountable

Now why do you think that is? Forest Gump is smart enough to see that something is amiss.... now don't you think it is time to find out once and for all what happened?



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by BenIndaSun

Originally posted by MrSpad
I know I am going regret even asking but, what is this suppose to mean? The pilots did hit the towers. So it could be and was done. Or is this one those theories that planes were holograms, remote controled fakes, mass hypnosis etc?


Another "option/theory" may be that the planes were pre-programmed via auto-pilot to hit the buildings. Imo airplanes did not hit the towers; purely speculative based on the lack of evidence for planes crashing in Pennsylvania or the Pentagon.

But I think the main point of this thread is to add to the fact that the MSM/gov story is not true, by highlighting that low-experience trained pilots (as the terrorists are described) could not have done what is alleged, if highly trained pilots struggled. I think it would be great to just convince more Americans of that.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by BenIndaSun]


I am a little lost here. So the planes in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon were not real either? The people and video from the Penetagon who say the plane are what? Lying or they saw a hologram? And the plane in Pennsylvania? They just created a crash sight for some reason? And so far I have seen nothing that tells me that guys with little to no training could not do it. It seems that their many many places who can "prove" that "proof" is wrong. How do you pick and choose what part of theory you believe and how is any more valid then all the others including the official one.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by MrSpad]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Doctor G
 


So hang on just to clarify.

What are you suggesting here? If the planes cannot be manuvered to do this in a simulator then what are you claiming hit the towers? Keeping in mind there are videos from multiple angles including civilian shot footage showing planes hitting those towers.

So if planes did indeed hit them then the pilots who cannot replicate the impacts are obviously ham strung by a simulator that cannot account for the exact conditions on the day.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
Well that is what we call speculation.... people will always come up with ideas and theories. What you fail to realize... and fail very well at.... is that no one has to prove how it was done, just that the probability that 3 out of 4 planes hit their targets is very much improbable.

Fact: NORAD had a very large amount of money provided by the Government for their budget in order to function on the 9/11

Fact: NORAD failed.

Fact: No one was held accountable

Now why do you think that is? Forest Gump is smart enough to see that something is amiss.... now don't you think it is time to find out once and for all what happened?


I am confused about what NORAD has to do with this? Are you saying aircraft or missles came into US air space and did the attacks and that NORAD missed it? Or do you think that NORAD should be paying less attention to monitering our airspace against foriegn threats and instead should have been monitering civilian air traffic?





top topics
 
141
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join