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: 51
141
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
These simulators are good for the average pc pilot, remember what you see on the monitor does not fully compare or match what you can see out of a 767 cockpit window, you get a better understanding using the applications virtual cockpit, but this still doesnt match the actual sitting in the pilots chair or the view this affords you, when you have a flat monitor, you would have a better understanding if you were able to get to sit in on the flight deck, if you want to simulate the fight, you would be better getting into a real simulator, with the correct panel, controls and screens, see below














Compare these images to your flat video, hopefully this will give you a better understanding of what you see when at the stick

Wee Mad



edit on 1/10/2010 by weemadmental because: Last post wouldnt edit





posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Just dropping in to check the score. I see it still remains the same after FIFTY-ONE 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


Again -

Wee Mad, Weedwhacker, trebor, et al,

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-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error - 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..."



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Freply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


In the video you posted, the one I repost has rob and his chum speaking about this and they say its possible in the video, so there's your answer to that, they say its possible for the 767 to go +100-150vmo so your argument is buff, so if two pilots from pft say yeah they can do it, the aircraft can do it, well according to your argument someone must be wrong and they are in your camp. !

As i have stated before things cannot be impossible and improbable at the same time, your answer to this was statistics, it still doesnt answer the question, how can things be impossible and improbable at the same time !

Wee mad


edit on 2/10/2010 by weemadmental because: because im worth it



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   

you would be better getting into a real simulator, with the correct panel, controls and screens,
That video I made a way back, that I posted the link to, I just checked and I used a 777 model to make that. The 767 model does not fly that well so I used a better handling model. The dash controls and gauges are different but the shape of the windshield and basic size seems to be the same. The model I mentioned that I said flew well is a 737 which does the "official" version of the flight path quite nicely. It has a audible warning system to it that warns about the plane breaking and it did not go off while I was running it. I don't know how many hundreds of times I have done this route so it is something I can do without having to do too much thinking. I suppose in real life, the 737 would be able to pull off the maneuver more easily, so it could be translating in the model as appropriate.
The video I mentioned in my last post is hypothetical, meaning it is something that is like a year long project, which I have been working on for about nine months, so it is not something you can find, but I think will exist in the not too far off future. A way to think about it would be to imagine if you see a video such as if Micheal Hezarkhani knew sooner to turn his video camera towards the outer bay, and you could see the approach of the plane, instead of just the last two seconds.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Im not getting at the video, its the view from the aircraft flight deck which is totally different to what actually is than what is in the video.

Until you have sat in the flight deck, in the actual captains or first officers seat, and seen the view afforded you will not be able to appreciate the view.

Wee Mad



posted on Oct, 3 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
In the video you posted, the one I repost has rob and his chum speaking about this and they say its possible in the video, so there's your answer to that, they say its possible for the 767 to go +100-150vmo so your argument is buff,


Wrong -

They say it was possible at landing speeds. The sim "crashes" when exceeding Vmo by 30-40 knots. The screen goes red and the sim freezes. This is the simulator telling you that you have just broke the airplane by exceeding it's limitations.

You need to watch the video again.



posted on Oct, 3 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


THAT IS NOT WHAT IS STATED IN THE VIDEO, your OWN video, the pilots, good old Rob and his pal state that they tried it in the Sim and were able to pull off the manoeuvre WHEN they were in the SIM, so wrong answer im afraid Tiff

Wee Mad



posted on Oct, 3 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


THAT IS NOT WHAT IS STATED IN THE VIDEO, your OWN video, the pilots, good old Rob and his pal state that they tried it in the Sim and were able to pull off the manoeuvre WHEN they were in the SIM, so wrong answer im afraid Tiff

Wee Mad


Wrong again.

Wee Mad, you really need to pay more attention when listening to and watching videos.

Check Airman Dan Govatos was able to "pull it off in the sim" with the pilots he was training at his airline. They clearly state they had to reduce to almost landing speeds in order to make the hit.


... and they couldn't do it until the slowed down to almost landing speeds. They could NOT hit those buildings, at the high speeds, they couldn't do it...


Starts at 03:40. Watch it this time.



They attempted this the NEXT DAY after 9/11/2001, on 9/12/2001. The speeds weren't even reported yet, so how would they know to accelerate to Vmo+150? They wouldn't, they didn't. As is pointed out in the video you clearly failed to watch, Dan Govatos clearly states they used 300 knots for their high speed tests. They couldn't go too much beyond that as the sim would "crash".

@7:00


it freezes up, it's a crash logic, and it has to be reset... you know, we were finding that all the time...


Captain Balsamo further discussed how he made his attempts in Microsoft Flight Simulator for a film he produced, "Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77".

He goes on to state it took him 5 or 6 tries to line it up like the OS states. He doesn't specify a speed. Unless of course you now think MSFS is "as real as it gets" and proves the OS true since Captain Balsamo could do it after 5 tries? He made these attempts in MSFS for a presentation, not to see if the OS is true or false.

Wee mad -

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-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error - 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..."



posted on Oct, 3 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Does anyone have a theory of how these planes hit the towers at such speeds? Obviously aircraft did hit
the towers. If the speeds are correct, then how was such a task accomplished if control was an issue?

Modified aircraft? Incorrect speed assessment by several sources? Lucky 3/3? Video frame rate increased on all sources? Perfectly normal?

Even if the airplane was remote controlled, would the control issue still apply?

I don't believe I've read/heard an alternative theory about this aside from CGI, or Video editing (both of which
have a decent amount of supporting evidence/logic). Even AE911 claims explosives with hard research and
evidence with the destruction of the towers.

So what's the response to the control issue? Either side of the debate may reply.



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Captain Balsamo further discussed how he made his attempts in Microsoft Flight Simulator for a film he produced, "Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77".

He goes on to state it took him 5 or 6 tries to line it up like the OS states. He doesn't specify a speed. Unless of course you now think MSFS is "as real as it gets" and proves the OS true since Captain Balsamo could do it after 5 tries? He made these attempts in MSFS for a presentation, not to see if the OS is true or false.


lol....that was reflective of the relative piloting skills - or lack there of - of "Captain" Bob Balsamo. It is the primary reason why he is not at the controls of a small regional prop job right now, much less a Boeing 7X7 class aircraft.

We can add "Captain" Bob Balsamo to the list of Pilots for 9/11 Truth Club members who cannot hit a 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide skyscraper in an aircraft flying 450 knots. I am *soooo* glad the majority of those "pilots" are no longer in cockpits.



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


First of all, due to so much obfuscation spewed by a certain "club" of so-called "pilots", let's be clear on a few things:


Does anyone have a theory of how these planes hit the towers at such speeds?


What 'speed' was American 11, on impact? Care to guess? Even "captain" (cough, cough) Balsamo, and the "clubhouse" crew, haven't argued against that one....in fact, "they" have no problem whatsoever, apparently, with American 11's reality. Reality as a Boeing 767, -200 series, operated as American Airlines flight 11 on 11 September, 2001, originally scheduled regular Part 121 passenger flight from Boston to Los Angeles.

AAL 11 was somewhere in the vicinity of Vmo, or maybe slightly above, in the final seconds to impact. The transponder on that airplane (unlike the one on United 175) was in 'STBY', so its radar tracked groundspeed might not be as accurate as for United's.

The fact that United 175 held together is, well...a fact. You can "quote" numbers and charts and graphs all day long, but it doesn't change the fact that an airplane exceeded its designers' theoretical "limits". This is not difficult to comprehend, for most rational people. Did the criminal who was flying it KNOW ahead of time what the theoretical 'limits' were? Yes. Did he care? No. He pushed it as 'fast' as it would physically go, merely by letting gravity do what it does naturally, along with help from the engines at full thrust settings. And, we saw the results.

Absent the FDRs for those two airplanes, we can only compare by looking at the two that were recovered --- Ameircan 77 and United 93. AAL 77 in a shallow dive, and the thrust is increased just near the final seconds, as the airspeed increases accordingly up to point of impact. UAL 93 speed increases primarily because of the extreme pitch angle, nose pointing 'down' rather steeply.


If the speeds are correct, then how was such a task accomplished if control was an issue?


Control obviously was not an "issue".


Modified aircraft?


Nope.


Incorrect speed assessment by several sources?


Nope.


Lucky 3/3?


I would hardly refer to it as "lucky".


Video frame rate increased on all sources?


??
?? Huh?? Can't be serious!!?



Even if the airplane was remote controlled, would the control issue still apply?


Yes, and no. Actually, it's ridiculous to even suggest "remote control" when speaking about United 175 and American 11 (or the other two). In any case, even IF one were to entertain such a possiblity, the level of control is exponentially more difficult, when operating remotely, when trying to do so at such high speeds. A human who is NOT in the cockpit is lacking many non-visual sensory cues that are utilized, usually subconsciously, in real flying. Research any of the current crop of UAVs, and look into the sorts of speeds they operate at, and also all of the details involved with their "remote control" aspects.



.... aside from CGI, or Video editing (both of which
have a decent amount of supporting evidence/logic).


Huh??? "Decent supporting evidence/logic"??? On what planet?


Even AE911 claims explosives with hard research ....


Also, on what planet?? Truly, they are delusional to claim any "explosives", since there is NO VIDEO evidence of any such thing, in any of the dozens of videos.



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
He goes on to state it took him 5 or 6 tries to line it up like the OS states. He doesn't specify a speed. Unless of course you now think MSFS is "as real as it gets" and proves the OS true since Captain Balsamo could do it after 5 tries? He made these attempts in MSFS for a presentation, not to see if the OS is true or false.

Sounds like Balsamo should have been a member of VATSIM in the days following the 9/11 attacks. You had countless number of virtual pilots who pretty much nailed it, to the point that the VATSIM network started banning users straight away, if they used the callsigns associated with 9/11 or turned off their transponders in flight.

Oh, and you should probably tell Balsamo that MSFS is FAR from as real as it gets. For starters, there's the whole lack of interaction, since you can't feel what the airplane is doing. In FS, I have nailed the IGS approach to and landing on runway 13 at the old Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong, but the second I tried it in a real life Level-D sim (granted, it was a DC-10), I failed miserably.



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


Yep, once again we have a very small group of pilots (about 75 to 100) and an even smaller number of them actively vocal (a hand full?) that keep saying they can't do it so it can't be done.

Tiff and friends just cannot understand the concept of lining a airliner up and firewalling the engines to hit the tower at whatever speed they could reach. These truthers want to suggest that these planes were flown with some pre-established flight plan when in fact they just wanted to hit the towers and the flight plan was what ever got them there.
This is an important point, and as example, if I took my car out on a lot and went 100 miles an hour and then whipped aggressively any direction I felt like even almost rolling it doesn’t mean I’m an expert driver and who would have an extremely hard time repeating my random craziness.

When you look at all this truther stuff it is based on looking at the single path looking back at 911, and for their theories to work the people involved would need to know the future to plan, but they didn’t and an unlimited number of variables were in front of them. This means, as example, they would not know they would want a modified aircraft to fly 500+ MPH to hit the second tower. When you hear these truthers they say stuff like “they needed a modified aircraft to out run the fighters” well that is a scenario they would never know about to plan for with some elaborated plan of an unforeseeable future.



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Does anyone have a theory of how these planes hit the towers at such speeds? Obviously aircraft did hit
the towers. . .
A 911 research group made a f.o.i.a. suit with NIST and got nine hundred and something gigabytes of videos and images and documents. One is a previously not seen video of the plane hitting the second tower. This seems to show a plane flying in a straight line, as I had observed on 911 as it happened.
The plane flies through the smoke from the first tower as soon as it comes in screen. Looking at where it was filmed, and lining up the buildings in the background, the plane would have been right over the northwest corner of Battery Park. That may not seem too earth shaking to the average person but to someone who has studied these older videos minutely, it is. What this means is that either this is fake, or the older videos are fake. Figure it out yourself, which way would be more advantageous to the "powers that be"?
This new revelation lends support to my claim, that in fact an airliner type plane hit tower 2, but not the way we were told. That other plane story was a cover for another, smaller type craft of some unknown type, which came from a higher angle and from more to the west.

edit on 4-10-2010 by jmdewey60 because: fix typo's



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Does anyone have a theory of how these planes hit the towers at such speeds? Obviously aircraft did hit
the towers. . .
A 911 research group made a f.o.i.a. suit with NIST and got nine hundred and something gigabytes of videos and images and documents. One is a previously not seen video of the plane hitting the second tower. This seems to show a plane flying in a straight line, as I had observed on 911 as it happened.
The plane flies through the smoke from the first tower as soon as it comes in screen. Looking at where it was filmed, and lining up the buildings in the background, the plane would have been right over the northwest corner of Battery Park. That may not seem too earth shaking to the average person but to someone who has studied these older videos minutely, it is. What this means is that either this is fake, or the older videos are fake. Figure it out yourself, which way would be more advantageous to the "powers that be"?
This new revelation lends support to my claim, that in fact an airliner type plane hit tower 2, but not the way we were told. That other plane story was a cover for another, smaller type craft of some unknown type, which came from a higher angle and from more to the west.


The problem is there are just too many videos out there to even think of faking them, so the fake ones will be by those who use limited evidence to support their theory. I do know that cameras are not all equal and light and distance plays a big role in how detailed the picture is. Some videos look kind of weird not because the reality is weird, but the camera just videoed it within its limitations that affects the image. I’m not trying to debunk your video, but more along the lines suggest that two different cameras could show slightly different images of the same situation.

I’m still stuck on your feelings that it was a different plane. You still have not talked about where did the hijacked airplanes go, and all the people on board. You said at maybe 50% of the people where made up, but that still leaves a good number that were just normal people. So at least two planes and 100s of people would need to disappear off the face of the earth, and if the first plane that hit the towers and the plane that crashed in the field were actually the real airliners, whether the hijacking was real or not, why would the two other planes need to be faked in anyway?

It’s like the theory of explosives….not even going down the path of how did they get it in the towers, but how would they handle the extreme variables of where the planes actually hit the towers? This means they would need to wire up 50 plus different floors with the ability to start the explosions on anyone of them to line it all up with the random location of where the planes would actually hit. This just splinters off into chaos as more and more things need to be added for this theory to work.

I see this same splintering for truther theories. Every time a loose end is tied up it opens up a number of other loose ends that border on the impossibility to accomplish without some serious help. John Lear is a very smart man, though a little wacky, but even he sees this dilemma with these theories and why he jumped right to alien help. Well at lease in his case he solved the never ending pattern of open ends.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Yep, once again we have a very small group of pilots (about 75 to 100) and an even smaller number of them actively vocal (a hand full?) that keep saying they can't do it so it can't be done.


And yet you haven't been able to find one verified pilot to support your claim that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank...

You have failed for more than 51 pages. Let us know when you find one.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You know, anyone can make any situation sound hard by describing all the physical pressures that are active. Humans undergo a constant pressure toward the center of the earth, are constantly buffeted by seriously variable wind speeds, and are always encountering different surfaces that they weren't designed to deal with automatically. That must mean that it is impossible for humans to move around safely at all!

A plane may not be easy to pilot, especially for someone who is not a pilot, but say you were planning a big terrorist attack. Wouldn't you have done at least a little research on how to fly the plane you're going to hijack? They didn't worry about starting the plane and getting it off the ground, because that was done by the actual pilots. They don't have to worry about protecting the planes during landing. They planned on crashing anyway. So, because they went all out and managed to hit their targets (well, most of them. Remember 97?), it is deemed to be nearly impossible. Surely the fact that it happened eliminates the impossibility factor?



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Some visual aids to understand my comments on the video I linked to in my last post.

Above is a Google Earth version of the camera position where the video would have been taken at.

Above a map showing a line drawn from the camera position to a point in the right hand background as the plane comes into view and promptly goes through a section of smoke coming from the burning first WTC tower.

Above is a photo taken just before the plane in the video shows up, giving a good indication of the western extent of the smoke that it would have had to negotiate.

Above is a Google Earth view from where the photo was taken, so we can find out what sort of angle we can determine for the smoke boundary.

Above is where the line would be on the map, showing where the edge of the smoke would be, that the plane would be going in and out of.
Looking at the lines on the two maps, it may be found that they intersect about where the Castle Clinton is, in the northwest area of Battery Park, which is quite a ways off from the second WTC tower and due south.
Is this consistent with the nice TV video we were shown of this sharply-veering-off-from-the-side plane? I don't think so. I think it is consistent with a plane flying in something close to a line drawn perpendicular to the center of the south face of tower two.
edit on 6-10-2010 by jmdewey60 because: fix typo's



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I’m still stuck on your feelings that it was a different plane.
Because that is what I saw. It was not a United Airlines plane. I don't know what it was but it was something consistent with a Boeing 767, but it was painted solid light grew, with no logos or any sort of writing that I noticed.
Why would they use a plane like that? Probably because it was rigged to fly remotely and was probably a decommissioned military plane that they were planning on possibly crashing anyway, in tests. It could have been one removed from the books as a casualty of such testing, so it was not something noticed as being missing.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post 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.

I think it means that if highly-experienced pilots couldn't do it, the chances of terrorists with half the experience pulling off such a manoeuvre are slimmer than Posh Spice on an all-Müller diet.

I'd be interested in knowing exactly how accurately these simulations emulate real-life.


Who can and can not do it on simulations does not alter the fact people saw and video captured planes hitting the towers. That ends the debate on if it could be done. Unless the claim is they were not planes, then my question has to be what were they? Where did the planes, crew and passengers go etc.?


This is a silly statement. We all know that planes hit the towers! The question is...drum roll... Who was piloting them? because some Arab noob with poor Cesna skills probably/definitely couldn't have maneuvered those enormous boeings in that way. That is the question, stop making everything that disagrees with your paradigm a wacky argument.

It is very frustrating...




top topics



 
141
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join