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: 52
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by Wide-Eyes

Let's imagine for a moment that you and a group of 20 others want to pull off an amazing event that has to be perfect. Do you not study how to drive the vehicle you'll use? The fact that some of the terrorists have definitive backgrounds in piloting should key people into how intelligent they were. It's not far fetched that they were able to pull it off. Plus, I don't know how the government could pay a pilot to blow himself up.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:10 AM

Originally posted by jmdewey60
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.

Thank you, you have echoed my theories precisely. I believe they were remote controlled. I would even go so far as to say the supposed highjackers were set up to highjack the planes as some sort of drill. However, they didn't realise it was for real.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:12 AM
reply to post by Varemia

Please read my comment above.

That explains my stance.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by Wide-Eyes

But what evidence (if at all) is your stance based on?

Faith is not a good answer in this information age.

If you pause this video at 00:05, that's five seconds in, you get a very good view of the plane.

Compare that to this:

It is not very military looking. It looks just like a 767. Now show me how you could have come to the conclusions that you did.
edit on 6-10-2010 by Varemia because: image link fixed

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:47 AM
reply to post by Varemia

Those guys had never flown a Boeing, how the hell did they understand how to maneuvre such a massive machine?

Seriously, it isn't like riding a bike. Do you see my point?

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:51 AM
reply to post by jmdewey60

All of your analysis, there, seems to reflect a poor remembering of the actual events.

UAL 175 didn't fly "through" any smoke....

Here, visual evidence, compiled of MANY angles, of the ONE event. Angles of view (and optical illusions resulting from such angles) may account for you inaccurate recollections....

Oh, and BTW - to respond to a point about the airplane looking "grey", with "no markings"? How far away from the airplane would you say you were, when you saw it?? Do you realize how a bit of distance can cause the (especially that particular United paint scheme) colors to blend together, and appear almost featureless???

Here, a real-life, undeniable airliner (non-9/11 footage, for a change). It was shot just last August. An Airbus A380 (mush larger than a Boeing 767).

As you watch, ask yourself these questions:

>What color is the paint scheme?
>What airline is it? Can I see any markings?
>Can I see any windows?
>Approximately HOW FAR AWAY is it? (**)
>Is it in shadow? Does the angle of the sunlight, and the shadows, make it difficult to see details?

(**) HInt: As it passes underneath the B-747, it looks to me lke it's 2,000 feet below. At most, 3,000 feet. Less than ONE MILE. How far away were you from UAL 175????

My decades of experience involve a LOT of looking at airplanes from a distance. From all sorts of angles, and combinations of visual conditions. SO, I watch the 9/11 videos, and they look exactly normal (except for the crash at the end...).

All anyone has to do is go outside, near any large airport, and watch airplanes see for themselves. There are other video examples as well, of course......and still photos, if you search hard enough.

Try for a start. They have a HUGE collection to choose from......

edit on 6 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Add video

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by Wide-Eyes

They probably read a book, or did an internet search, or something! You don't just go into a hijacking mission with no prior knowledge of how to do what you're about to do.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 12:10 PM
reply to post by Wide-Eyes

Those guys had never flown a Boeing, how the hell did they understand how to maneuvre such a massive machine?

Yes, they had simulator time. NOT in your Microsoft home version, the REAL simulators that re-create the actual Boeings.

Oh, and size does NOT matter, in level of "diffculty" here. All the primary flight controls work exactly the same way, from any Cessna to Boeing. Not sure where people get this notion that a "massive" Boeing is somehow "harder" to fly??
Nt when you're only discussing the basics of "steering", dead simple actually.

Here's an you consider the pop singer Ricky Martin to be a "qualified" Boeing pilot???

He describes himself as a "frustrated pilot", so he might have had a few lessons in "small" (Cessna-type) airplanes. So, here's a fluff segment done for some TV show ("GMTV" -- I think it's a British AM show).

Ricky Martin, NOT an airline pilot, in a Boeing full-motion Sim (a B-737, but a B-767 isn't a heck of a lot different). AND, he does what the criminal hijackers did NOT!! A take-off, and a landing! (Yes, he got some instruction and coaching....but, if he can do that...well, I could even put YOU into a Sim, and YOU could do it too):

BTW, from another "theory".....NO, 'remote control' for the airliners of 9/11 is NOT a plausible concept.....

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 12:55 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

UAL 175 didn't fly "through" any smoke....
You have to look at a lot of pictures taken right before, and when, the second plane hit. there are sections that are like puffs or rolls of smoke extending down from the main column of smoke from the north tower. It would be difficult to avoid and could not be avoided by going below them without getting down to the ground. You can see in good versions of the videos, smoke getting sucked into the slipstream of the plane and leaving strings, or tendrils, behind it where it stays visible for a second after it passes.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 04:32 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

I appreciate what you are saying but trust me, no-one wants me to fly a Jumbo... That would really be an epic fail

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 12:30 PM

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
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...

Once again, this tired old mantra.... using certain key words, yet scripted to be the same, with each and every posting! Seems it's used to subtly plant ideas, and incredulity in some people's minds....especially those without flying experience in REAL airplanes, and especially in jets. is true that (prior to UAL 175) no one intentionally took a Boeing 767 up to an airspeed (where, in any case, the instrument itself will peg out at 450, the top of the scale on the instrument) that high above Vmo.
So, there is no way to ascertain, if one tried, your speed without some other indication (could use the FMC grouundspeed readout, I suppose....). Problem, of course, is that there isn't a simulator that I know of that won't "crash" when exceeding Vmo by a substantial margin....because there is no need for it to do so, for training purposes. Still, that in no way indicates that it's "impossible" for the real airplane, of course. We know it isn't, because it has happened.

The continued posting of "Va" is nonsense, relates more for rapid and full application of control surfaces, and also turbulence encounters....none of which were factors with UAL 175. Just some eyewash, from the "PfT" club....part of their modus operandi.

Then the "pulling G's" baloney (using the "10,000+ foot dive" as if it adds something to the "dramatic effect" of their claim!!) and the "cranking into" a 38 degree bank. Seems each time I post the links to how to calculate the g-loads in a 38 degree bank (or any angle) turn, they are ignored...(Hint: It's about 1.3 g). G-loads vary, though, regardless of angle, depending on whether you're ALSO increasing pitch attitude at the same time, or decreasing pitch......but, since most at "PfT" (it seems) only derive their knowledge from desktop Flight Simulator programs, they wouldn't be able to feel this, and know about it.

Now, I surely have no reason to think that the airplane would suddenly become "uncontrollable", simply from the excessive Indicated Airspeeds....not unless it was in a regime where that high IAS would also result in a very, very high Mach number. THAT (Mach #) is more critical, in controllability and stability issues. For UAL 175, at that altitude and (reported approx speed) the Mach is only about .76, versus the .84 Mmo (max operating) and Boeing's designated max dive Mach speed of .91

I had, in the back-and-forths with "Tiff", kept in the back of my mind an article I'd read, years ago...but kept forgetting it (and finding it). IN 2001 (February) some pilots with ALPA (Air Line Pilots Association) had a "first look" at the newest Boeing 767 version, the -400. Really, just a "stretched" version of the the -300, which itself is stretched from the -200. (The -400, being latest, incorporates some newer Boeing cockpit layout designs, a'la the B-777, and now the 'next generation' B-737s too). Basically, a little bit closer to the "glass cockpit" concept.

Although there are certain technical differences involved with 'stretching'...from a pilot's perspective of performance and "feel", there is little change between the various versions.

So, although this is in a -400, it's worth pointing out a few things that these REAL pilots reported (no, they didn't exceed Vmo!!!):

So our first maneuver east of the mountains was a rapid descent, simulating loss of cabin pressure....
I dialed the altitude from FL290 down to 11,000 feet, disconnected autothrust and brought the throttles to idle, dialed the speed up to 350 knots, and deployed the speedbrakes.

Please note, first they used the A/P for this. But, it had to be "programmed" through the Mode Control Panel for what they desired. It's irrelevent, though...what's different, here, to UAL 175 is the use of speedbrakes, AND the thrust levers back to flight idle.

On the initial pitchover, the rate of descent increased to 9,600 feet per minute at 7½ degrees nose down, then slowed to 5,300 feet per minute as the airspeed stabilized at 353 knots.

OK, jumping out again....7 1/2 degrees nose down is NOT very much, at all. Anyone sitting back in the cabin would hardly notice it, and not think it "excessive" at all.

The reason they mention the rate of descent "slowing" is because the A/P pitches up as it reaches the "dialed in" airspeed target. In order to not over-speed. The criminal flying UAL 175 had no such compunctions.

The time from start of the descent to level-off at 11,000 feet was just 3 minutes. Very impressive, particularly since we flew the maneuver by interfacing with automation, rather than manually.

So, these guys managed to make a "10,000+ foot dive"
and level off, without breaking the airplane. (Since, it would have likely been in the news, and they wouldn't have been able to write the article, if the airplane suffered too many Gs from the "10,000+ foot dive"

Now, they describe a little "air work"....stuff we don't do much anymore, in real airplanes....since the simulators substitute well for that, and because using the actual airplane as a "pilot trainer" is too costly....:

We entered an arbitrary working area into the Honeywell Pegasus FMC and set up for some flight maneuvers northwest of Moses Lake. The first was a check of roll rate in bank-to-bank rolls from 30 degrees to 30 degrees at ½ wheel deflection.

Now, that's not very comfortable for the passengers...oh, wait, there aren't any! Still that's some pretty aggressive control deflections there...didn't break anything, I hope. Let's see how fast they were going, when doing this....were they below "Tiff" famous "Va" airspeed???

Flying the clean airplane at 350 knots, bank-to-bank took 4 seconds, for a roll rate of 15 degrees per second. Here is where a sharp control input initiated an aeroelastic response from the airframe.

Wow! Still alive to talk about it afterwards! (**aeroelastic simply means the wings flexed, in the context used here. "PfT" like to try to scare people, by talking about "flutter", which DOES fall into the "aeroelastic" category as one symptom...but they imply that a Boeing will fall apart immediately (or something). Boeings, and other large jets, are actually designed to be quite flexible, and withstand without damage. Search YouTube, Google, or just look out at the wing, on your next airline flight).

Well, later they played some more, but it isn't relevant to United 175, just here for FYI:

A later check of this same maneuver with flaps 30 at Vref=136 gave a bank-to-bank time of 6 seconds, or a roll rate of 10 degrees per second. This excellent response at slow speed in the landing configuration is another indication of the exceptional handling qualities of this airplane.

You can read the full article here if interested.

Oh, and "Vref" up above. That's a "ref" for reference speed. Landing speed, in other words. Generally basic "ref" has additions to it, in normal airline practice, as a margin or "buffer". Five knots normally, and there are wind additives too....1/2 the steady wind speed (if over 10 knots) plus all of the gust factor (if any). Also, for non-normal configurations (equipment malfunctions, emergencies, engine-out etc) there are other additions, specified in the appropriate procedure (in the QRH) for the condition.

edit on 7 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Text

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Rig for checking wings on a airliner, this is a Boeing 787 dreamliner in the rig.

Wee Mad

edit on 7/10/2010 by weemadmental because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 02:23 AM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
.but, since most at "PfT" (it seems) only derive their knowledge from desktop Flight Simulator programs, they wouldn't be able to feel this, and know about it.

Seem you failed to check the credentials of the growing list of Core Members at Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

Click it. (Acronyms are defined at the top of page if you're confused)

You can see the same here, many in uniform on the Flight Deck.

I also hear there is a major update coming soon adding many more aviation professionals so you may want to keep an eye on it.

I see the score still remains the same after FIFTY-TWO 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 -

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, 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..."

So far, you have failed for more than FIFTY-TWO pages.

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 02:45 AM

Originally posted by TiffanyInLAPlease 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..."

Say, "Tiff", why don't you or the treehouse friends at PffffT try and find a flight whuch actually experienced the above mentioned parameters?

Oh, and have you heard of the Gimli Glider? Boeing 767 that lost both engines due to fuel starvation, yet the crew managed to succesfully land on a disused airstrip. Subsequent aircrews tried to repeat the feat in the simulator, they all failed. What are the odds of that?

edit on 8-10-2010 by roboe because: clarification

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 03:21 PM

We were climbing through eleven hundred feet toward an assigned altitude of fifteen hundred feet, and then we saw it. Paul Smith, my pilot, saw it before I did -- an airliner, traveling from south to north, traveling low and fast.
"Now what's this guy doing?" I asked Paul.
"You see this yahoo?" he shot back.
Paul was thinking the same thing I was: the jetliner was on an approach to Newark's shortest and most seldom used runway, and was, for some reason, slightly off course. Airplanes would come up from the south and then turn west near the Statue of Liberty onto final approach. Paul assumed that this airplane would do just that, and he was perturbed that Newark's air traffic controller hadn't advised us that there was an airplane in our vicinity.
I could see the rear profile with engines on both wings as it approached the statue. A Boeing 737, I thought. And then it dipped. Not a nice, gradual descent, but a brief dip and then a sharp turn to the right. Not a graceful, gradual airliner turn like you see in commercials; this was a sharp, abrupt turn that put the plane into a forty-five-degree bank, and it flew into the shade being created by the smoke plume from the north tower.

- John Del Giorno, Helicopter Reporter, WABC-TV, New York
There are other eyewitness reports from people in choppers around the WTC who saw the second plane. None of them seem to support the "official" version.

edit on 10-10-2010 by jmdewey60 because: add quote

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 09:15 PM
People fail to fly a plane into a a building in flght sim.. therefore conspiracy?

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 09:19 PM

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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..."

So far, you have failed for more than FIFTY-TWO pages.

The thing that really stands out here with Tiffany and "Captain" Bob Balsamo is their basic inability to understand the difference between limitations placed on an aircraft and the capabilities of an aircraft - the former, of course, being man-made and man-imposed, and the latter being, in most cases, unknown, for good reason.
Those man-made and man-imposed limitations are designed and put in place for the survival of the aircraft and the continued existence on this earth of the aircraft crew and the passengers - all commendable things when your company's bottom line is to provide a profitable and safe airline service.

Take away any desire to maintain that existence and that safety and that profit and the second category comes into play - what the true ultimate capabilities of the aircraft are - in this case a 767 with those big Pratt and Whitney engines in the hands terrorist-hijackers who would just as soon strap a vest of C4 around them, walk into a restaurant or an elementary school or a bus station or wherever and blow it up. The only difference between that and hijacking a "Great Satan" airliner on Sept 11, 2001 and flying it into a skyscraper is merely a matter of degree.

THAT is what Tiffany and "Captain" Bob Balsamo and the aeronautical wonders of PfT continually fail to understand and continue to plead ignorance on. Man-made and man-imposed limitations mean nothing to a terrorist hijacker bent of crashing the aircraft they just hijacked into a building.

Even the "technical aeronautical" issues Tiffany and "Captain" Bob Balsamo talk about are sensationalized bunk.

2 minutes before impact, UA 175 was at approximately 14,000 feet, in a descent. Impact, 2 minutes later, was at approximately the 800 foot level of WTC2. Round that 800 up to 1,000 feet and we have a descent of 13,000 feet in 2 minutes, a rate of decent of 6,500 feet per minute. Tiffany and "Captain" Bob Balsamo would have you believe that is something absolutely horrendous. The g-load on that, Tiffany and "Captain" Bob Balsamo would want you to believe, would be terrific, certainly. Incredible. Impossible. It is also BS. There is nothing spectacular about a 6,500 foot per minute rate of descent in a 767 and hitting a 1,300 foot tall and 208 foot-wide skyscraper at the 800-foot level.

The magnetic heading varies only about 10 degrees, starting out at about 035, deviating to 041 and then impacting the building on a 030 heading. So, a very manageable 6,500 foot-per-minute dive on a heading that did not vary more than 5 degrees either side from a base heading over a 2 minute period is what we end up with.

UA 175 impacted WTC 2 with a 38 degree left-wing down roll angle. Rolling g's involve an aerodynamic differential between the lower wing and the higher wing - the lower wing creating a greater angle of attack than the higher wing. The main concern from an aerodynamic perspective about rolling g's is when a roll is combined with a pull-up, creating additional asymmetric and differential loads on the wings and the fuselage. There was no rolling pull-up on any of the impact videos - merely a static 38-degree left wing down roll in the terminal portion of the flight.

No lateral g-forces, no excessive g-forces on a pull up out of a 6,500 foot-per-minute dive, no excessive rolling g-forces with a simple left-wing down roll of 38 degrees.

This is what Tiffany and "Captain" Bob Balsamo claim as one of their foundations of their "impossible" argument.

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 09:29 PM
reply to post by Doctor G

I'd hate to be a passenger on a plane they fly when they are trying to land. From the sounds of things I doubt they could 'hit' a runway.

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 07:01 AM

Originally posted by SpacePunk
reply to post by Doctor G

I'd hate to be a passenger on a plane they fly when they are trying to land. From the sounds of things I doubt they could 'hit' a runway.

To be quite honest, I could care less about their resume or their flight hours or the number of aircraft they have flown or their pedigree or the fact that they have time in those same aircraft or different aircraft or a navy fighter or an Air Force transport or a tricycle or a space shuttle...anyone who claims it would be "impossible" to fly a 767 into a 1,3000 foot tall by 208 foot wide skyscraper at 450 knots is a lunatic. Pure and simple.

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by jmdewey60

Please elaborate, on the comments from the helicopter pilot/passenger.

From what I know (experience flying into the area, specifically into La Guardia and Newark, quite often) they describe the fairly normal, on a clear day, occurrence of an airplane that is "circling" to land (as we call it) after initially using another runway's electronic guidance...breaking off, then aligning with another at a different angle to the first.

Specifically, at Newark, they are describing a situation when the arriving jet is coming from the South, and using the Runway 4R Localizer, then either per ATC request to expedite the handling of traffic, or due to the wind situation, at about 1,500 to 1,000 feet above the ground, a slight break to the East (right), up the river, (following that spit of land S/SW of Jersey is Bayonne, NJ) towards "the Lady" (Statue of Liberty), then a left turn westerly to line up with Runway 29. THAT is the "shorter" runway mentioned, it sits at the northern end of the field, cross-wise to the other two main runways, 4L/22R and 4R/22L. We are supposed to plan the base leg, and turn on to final approach, "inside of" the Statue...that is, West of it...NOT overfly it, nor stray further northeast towards Manhattan.

Here's a link to an example of the types of charts pilots use, this case it's the Newark Airport Diagram (sometimes called "taxi chart", since it's referred to for taxiing on the ground. Has lots of other info, too). This is a version published by the Government....(NOAA):

Newark Airport Diagram

MOST pilots, especially in the USA, use the format published by the "Jeppesen" company (now a subsidiary of Boeing...but, originally, its own company, started by a United Airlines pilot in 1934 --- named 'Jeppesen'--- who worked for Varney Airlines, before it merged to become United. He was frustrated by what was offered, then, by the Government, so he started drawing his own. They became so popular, a business was born!).

Because "Jepps" charts are copyrighted, current ones aren't available for free on the Internet. But, to compare the formats (much preferred, still, the Jepps over the NOAA versions) here's an example of Jepps 10-9 page (their proprietary method of numbering/ordering their various charts and procedure depictions), this case an old one (not to be used currently) for Boston:

Really, all the same required info, but in the case of Jeppesen, much better presentation over-all. PLUS, Jeppesen offers a customizable service, for airlines. The charts can be tailored per customers' request.

Well, with that background, on to the point:

As I said, usually the 'circle' approach that the helicopter witnesses describe occurs in clear weather, but IF the airplane is equipped, there IS an "RNAV" (using GPS) approach as well, which could be used in inclement weather follows the same approaximate paths as a visual approach would use. This link to it is here: (NOAA version, sorry....but gets the point accross).

Newark RNAV RWY 29

If you compare to maps, you can see where the Statue is located, in reference to that approach path routing.

Now.....just how is the so-called "official story" incorrect???

United 175 was flown in from the South, on an approaximately Northerly heading. I am confused by the helicopter's pilot/passenger reports of a "right 45 degree" bank, when we all see in the videos it is a LEFT bank. Has been measured at 38 degrees (but, 45 was just a WAG on their part). Maybe, because they were looking TOWARDS the oncoming airplane, as its LEFT wing was down, it would appear to be on THEIR "right"....they just have it backwards, in their "eyewitness" report.

edit on 11 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Spell and text

top topics

<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in