9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by wcitizen
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 .

I see this as a propaganda point totally biased towards their hypothesis that IS NOT fact even though they suggest it is. There are many more people who think that every airliner in the world dumps chem trails than believes that airliners could not hit the towers at whatever max seed that can be reached after firewalling the engines on their final, and I mean final, run in. Does this mean that the chem trail hypothesis are all true?

We have posters right here that said they have flown the same flight profile without much problem, so I guess they are lying…

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

Nope, nobody missed this point, but one needs to understand that people who are so invested in their hypothesis will do anything to make it real while jumping any huge gap that comes along.

We saw a string of posts in the neighborhood of 6000 plus pushing the idea that Chris Angel is real with all his stunts. As you spend a good amount of time on ATS you can really see these posts for what they are even if people spend 6000 posts pushing their point. It doesn't change reality...

So, if you fully comprehend the implications of this, it means that if one out of three experienced commercial jet pilots couldn't manage to carry out this manoeuvre, it is highly unlikely that an inexperienced highjacker could do it.....and even more unlikely that three out of three inexperienced highjackers could successfully carry out the manoeuvres and hit both the two WT towers and the Pentagon successully.

Yep, and we never went to the moon...this has been proven time and time again...well except for the fact we did go...these above are great examples that anything can be proven wrong when one picks and chooses the data that supports that view. It doesn't take much to prove a point when a group only uses what fits their point while ignoring EVERYTHING else.

As example, when someone asks why is there only 75 or so professional pilots supporting this and not 10,000s that point is ignored. This is not even counting those who are ACTUALLY involved or still believe.. I would bet we are dealing with a hand full here.

Connect the dots here..please...

If one suggests these were not airliners with many people on them, making phone calls as it all was happening, and who all died, where did all those people go?

I fly drones now for a living and if one thinks it would be easier flying a drone at high speeds to hit a building than physically flying the plane one knows little about drones...but once again where did the people go?

I think I can ask, oh, 100s of more questions like this that just cannot be answered if we run with their hypothesis, but all these variables are just pushed aside as if it does not matter.

We need the Full Monty on this and not just a little peek of a side hypothesi. We need this taken from start to finished with EVERY aspect covered and not just ignore the areas that drift off into so many varables that it gets out of control. This means factual information along the whole thing with no gaps that any reasonable person can see that even one gap puts the whole hypothesis dead in the water.


I'll start...the airliners did not cause the collapse of the towers…. Now finish it…

Those who blindly support the OS sure do like to type a lot.

Unfortunately for them, the score remains after FORTY-SIX pages -

Evidence for my argument (Reported speeds/control "impossible", "improbable", "The Elephant In The Room") -

Data - NTSB, Boeing, Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
Precedent - EA990, China Airlines 747SP, TWA 727, 737, Modified DC-8, all suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10's of thousand of feet to recover, or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits.
Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...)



Evidence for the argument of those who blindly support the OS (It is easy to control an aircraft at Vmo+150) -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = 0
Precedent = 0
Verified Experts = 0


I'll add yet another question which is continually evaded by those who blindly support anything the govt tells them -

When will Trebor (spell it backwards and you will understand the obsession of this person), weedwhacker, and/or their blind supporters, debate Robert Balsamo and the Pilots For 9/11 Truth on air?

It is clear they rather "debate" here on ATS anonymously.

Again -

Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that it is "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so..."

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


In the released footage of the first gate camera, there is a white flash going right to left within the trees. (three or four frames before the explosion)---(edit footage here)

If the plane seen by the 12 witnesses was as close to the gas station as they say it was, and pulled up and over the Pentacon (there were no eye witnesses on the far side, due to the instant fire and smoke)

A "missile" could have been fired from a enclosure close by (no missile ignition seen) at the correct timing- in accordance with the incoming plane. (reaching the target within a second or less of the plane) that flew over.

The light poles down? The taxi driver's windshield incidentally was hit by a falling light pole. If it wasn't why would he stop there- claiming so. The light pole would have stopped traffic way before he got to that spot.

All of the other light poles were off the road, into their grassy knolls. "as I recollect"

So the assumed path of the missile was preplanned by laying these poles down the night before.
However I have not seen the damage (marks from a plane hitting them) (has anybody?)

If the assumed missile grazed only that pole that fell on the cab. (I did see that pole and it seemed to have a slice-dent near the top) Could it have traveled another 500 to 1000 ft to hit a "painted target?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


You do understand that you can't win an argument by just writing "I'm winning this argument" don't you?

Perhaps not.

Originally posted by Tribble
In the released footage of the first gate camera, there is a white flash going right to left within the trees. (three or four frames before the explosion)---(edit footage here)

Yes, please show us in the "released footage" where it displays "N644AA".

Thanks.

If the plane seen by the 12 witnesses was as close to the gas station as they say it was, and pulled up and over the Pentacon (there were no eye witnesses on the far side, due to the instant fire and smoke)

Please familiarize yourself with the definition of a sentence fragment.

A "missile" could have been fired from a enclosure close by (no missile ignition seen) at the correct timing- in accordance with the incoming plane. (reaching the target within a second or less of the plane) that flew over.

Evidence is required. Your above statement is pure speculation. As is the rest of your reply, so I won't bother to address it.

But I'm sure those who blindly support the OS will have a field day with your post.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You do understand that you can't win an argument by just writing "I'm winning this argument" don't you?

You should take your own advice, as it appears that is all you have for an argument.

Do you not understand that there is actual evidence, data, precedent and verified experts, under my claims and there is none for your blind support of the OS?

Let us know when you get some evidence for your claims.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

OK fair enough- let me start here:
I don't know how to post this video. All of the You Tube videos are cut down.
If you click this site and download "Video 1" It takes about 20 seconds to download.
There is a white object cutting across the grass at 1:15
At 1:16 there is what appears to be a smoke trail following it.

I know there is a road just this side of the trees with cars going both directions.

Site is Judicial Watch
www.judicialwatch.org...

46 pages of replies already highlight something is wrong,
the whole 911 scenario have loopholes everywhere,
the government denying to reopen the case already show their true intention,
...and yet we have a few people standing firm with OS.

If OS is what really happen, then why not reopen the case ? There nothing to be afraid of. Even stupid criminal cases have rehearing/retrial, but not major case like 911 ?

We spent billions on useless stuff and even give donations to other country yet we dont dare to inspect our own tragedy ? Something really fishy about it.

Advice to the OS supporters:
You can cover/bury an elephant carcass the best you can, but it will still stink. Its useless to cover and too big to hide. Just quit covering it and let the herd go wherever they want. They gov is always in control.
Why would you cover somebody else ass anyway ?

They looked like planes and holograms could not have done that damage. Remote controlled planes would have been subject to the same failures. So what were they? Anybody got any idea?

Originally posted by earthdude
They looked like planes and holograms could not have done that damage. Remote controlled planes would have been subject to the same failures. So what were they? Anybody got any idea?

I do. A 767 flew up the harbor after barely clearing Verrazano Bridge then went in an arc along the western side of the lower bay (at about 200 feet above the water) until it got right up against Governor's Island, then banked left to line up with the towers, did a tiny correction to the right as it went past the southern end of the promenade of Battery Park, where it quickly gained altitude and just before hitting the tower made another correction, this time to the left.
OK that's one plane, the one I watched the whole way from that spot (the southern end of the promenade of Battery Park). The second plane was what took this downhill corkscrew path that got caught on live network video as an orb thing. That was some other sort of plane very capable of performing such a feat, but was craftily overlaid with an airliner image to make that the hijacked plane.
Meanwhile the video and eyewitnesses and stories of the real airliner were ignored or buried or ridiculous sounding plants were put into the video like the guy who swore he saw a propeller driven plane "like a Dakota".
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ea593b558d73.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by earthdude
They looked like planes and holograms could not have done that damage. Remote controlled planes would have been subject to the same failures. So what were they? Anybody got any idea?

I do. A 767 flew up the harbor after barely clearing Verrazano Bridge then went in an arc along the western side of the lower bay (at about 200 feet above the water) until it got right up against Governor's Island, then banked left to line up with the towers, did a tiny correction to the right as it went past the southern end of the promenade of Battery Park, where it quickly gained altitude and just before hitting the tower made another correction, this time to the left.
OK that's one plane, the one I watched the whole way from that spot (the southern end of the promenade of Battery Park). The second plane was what took this downhill corkscrew path that got caught on live network video as an orb thing. That was some other sort of plane very capable of performing such a feat, but was craftily overlaid with an airliner image to make that the hijacked plane.
Meanwhile the video and eyewitnesses and stories of the real airliner were ignored or buried or ridiculous sounding plants were put into the video like the guy who swore he saw a propeller driven plane "like a Dakota".
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ea593b558d73.jpg[/atsimg]

You a member of the Pilot'sfor 9/11 Truth Club? If not, you need to be. Lots of like-minded thinkers over there.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
I'll add yet another question which is continually evaded by those who blindly support anything the govt tells them -

When will Trebor (spell it backwards and you will understand the obsession of this person), weedwhacker, and/or their blind supporters, debate Robert Balsamo and the Pilots For 9/11 Truth on air?

It is clear they rather "debate" here on ATS anonymously.

Hey Tiff! Here's a guy Captain Bob Balsamo can debate! Its Judge Denny Chin!

Wait...he already had his time with Judge Chin. Never mind.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

OK that's one plane, the one I watched the whole way from that spot (the southern end of the promenade of Battery Park). The second plane was what took this downhill corkscrew path that got caught on live network video as an orb thing. That was some other sort of plane very capable of performing such a feat, but was craftily overlaid with an airliner image to make that the hijacked plane.
Meanwhile the video and eyewitnesses and stories of the real airliner were ignored or buried or ridiculous sounding plants were put into the video like the guy who swore he saw a propeller driven plane "like a Dakota".
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ea593b558d73.jpg[/atsimg]

I have a few thoughts on this...

First when you say "overlaid" I hope you mean in the sense of identifying it and not actually physically switching the second plane image on 100s of different videos. If you think the videos were somehow doctored you really need to rethink that, but then there has been a few doctored videos from truther…sad to say.

Now it seems rather strange that everyone is ok with the first plane that we have just one video of. No one is really disputing that one, but the second one is where people like you are saying it wasn’t what it was made out to be. My question is why go to such lengths with the second plane? What was the need to build a “more capable” plane to fly higher speeds? What was the need to make it a drone and not just another hijacked airliner like plane one? If you really think about it, planning the second plane to fly anything out of the ordinary, with the forehand knowledge that 100s of videos and 10,000s of people will most likely record/see it, one would think anything but the real thing would be a very VERY bad idea to what seems to have been a perfect plan. That makes it hard for me to jump on the bandwagon when one first suggests much of a plan needs to go so well that the planners must have had a crystal ball to actually view the future for their plan to be so perfectly made and executed, but then they also do the most stupid things too.

The secret is as events happen they play out with unlimited number of variables until looked back on where only one path for the event is seen, and it is when people push alternate theories that we see the need to use perfect crystal ball planning mixed with complete idiocy to keep these alternate theories on the same one true path.

Another aspect to all this is that these theorists do not use the Occam Razor principle "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" in any way. They take what is factually known and replace parts with their own theory, but then they find out that they need to create complex scenarios to bridge these huge gaps that their theories make. This adds never ending levels of complexities that creates a never ending number of variables to make their theories work. When you see theories go in this direction its best just to walk away from it since it will end up spinning out of control sooner or later in a continued effort to keep the theory alive.

You saw the event, as did huge number to others, but when we are dealing with witnesses there will be many different views of the same situation, so we need to analyze ALL the witness reports and what was the most popular view is a good chance also the correct view. If someone quotes that guy who says it was a prop plane or the other guy who says it was an alien ship while ignoring the majority view is just pushing a very bias agenda.

Lastly, even if we push all these alternate theories it does not advance the proof needed to pin this on who really was behind it all, so to the “Bush haters”, it doesn’t prove anything even if it was alien technology and not an airliner.

reply to post by Xtrozero

First when you say "overlaid" I hope you mean in the sense of identifying it and not actually physically switching the second plane image on 100s of different videos. If you think the videos were somehow doctored you really need to rethink that, but then there has been a few doctored videos from truther…sad to say.

Mainly just the one, the one that the likes of Simon Shack use to promote the no-plane theory, which is the NBC video where the morning show personalities are talking, then one says, "Oh, what was that? Was that the other tower, oh my!" When it was live you didn't see anything, then they show a recorded version a little later and there is great big plane in the picture flying in from the right side of the screen.
As for planning, the real airliner plane was flown in such a way that the last two seconds would be close to what the other plane was doing, but came from a different direction. There are not many videos out there that are more than two and a half seconds of flying plane. There are two exceptions, one is the "Jersey Shore" video that went onto a couple different TV shows within a couple hours. The first part could have been any flight going to La Guardia. Then it disappears for a few frames, then it is all of a sudden crashing into the tower.
Watch my video "Liberty Island Plane" on media abovetopsecret and I discuss how the timing on that video is impossible.
Second, on planning, the cameras including the news choppers, everything under control of the TV were situated to where they would not see any planes, then they could pick out what they wanted people to see later, from cameras that they could disclose at a later time. The fly in the ointment was this tell tale line going into the tower that some people saw live. I don't think they expected anyone to pick up on that. Since people did, they had to make a cover, and it is not so difficult as you may imagine.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b40d2d8fb2a9.jpg[/atsimg]
Here's one I made.

In addition to the already legion evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon -- i.e. the small hole in the west side of the Pentagon being not nearly large enough for the plane’s fuselage, let alone wing width; no damage to the lawn where Flight 77 allegedly struck and skidded before hitting the building; wrecked plane parts at the site identified as being from an A-3 Sky Warrior, a far smaller plane than that of Flight 77, a Boeing 757; Pentagon requests to TV media on the morning of 9/11 not to take up-close images, etc. -- there is also official evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the building:

In the Air Force’s own account of the events of 9/11, Air War Over America, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) general who finally ordered interceptor jets scrambled on 9/11, although too late, Gen. Larry Arnold, revealed that he ordered one of his jets to fly down low over the Pentagon shortly after the attack there that morning, and that this pilot reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building. This fighter jet -not Flight 77- is almost certainly the plane seen on the Dulles airport Air Traffic Controller’s screen making a steep, high-speed 270-degree descent before disappearing from the radar. [When a plane flies low enough to go undetected, it is said to be "under the radar."] Military pilots -like the one sent by Gen. Arnold on 9/11 to report on the Pentagon’s damage- are trained to fly 500 feet above ground in order to evade radar detection. In fact, when the Air Traffic Controller responsible for the plane and her colleagues watched the extremely difficult 270-degree maneuver on her screen, they were certain that the plane whose blip they were watching perform this extremely difficult feat was a US military aircraft, and said so at the time. It almost certainly was.

Thus, the likely reason the Pentagon has refused to lower the current official time for "Flight 77" impact, 9:37, to 9:32 am -the actual time of the first explosions there- is that they decided to pretend the blip represented by Arnold’s surveillance jet approaching just before 9:37 was "Flight 77." As the official

johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com...

We hit the Trifecta, folks!!! A Three-in-one post!

First off, the old A-3 Skywarrior bit!

Originally posted by slugger9787

wrecked plane parts at the site identified as being from an A-3 Sky Warrior, a far smaller plane than that of Flight 77, a Boeing 757

Number 2 is NOTHING hit the building!

... and that this pilot reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.

THIRD is the EXPLOSIVES that blew the building apart!

...Thus, the likely reason the Pentagon has refused to lower the current official time for "Flight 77" impact, 9:37, to 9:32 am -the actual time of the first explosions there

Michener said it best in "The Bridges of Toko Ri"...

Where do we find such men?

Gobsmacked, I am. Gobsmacked.

Robert are you going to reply to the post?
Otherwise, take a hike.

The 270 degree descending turn was a fighter pilot at 937.
He said he saw no evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon.
He did not say that there was no damage.

The clocks in the pentagon stopped at 932.

why the deciept of the actual time from officials?

anyway, you did not respond to my post, you just ridiculed i like it has no substance.

HMMMM there is a thought.
no substance, like your psuedoreply.

reply to post by Nathan-D


there were twin flights of all the airplanes on 911
93, 175,11 and 77.

the original UA or AA plane and a similar military aircaft with the same numbers.

the militay were remote contrlled.
where did the real passengers on the real jets disappear to?

that is a $64,000 dollar question.