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: 53
141
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I made a video as a visual aid for showing why we have to believe in a plane flying into Tower Two at an angle.
This was seen on live network TV, so there needed to be an explanation for it. The most convenient thing to attach to it was that it was the hijacked airliner. My personal opinion is that, if not for this one video, we would be happy enough with an airliner coming up from the south, in something similar to a straight line. Considering that the airliner had already been used to explain this video, the real plane was dumped. That being said, then someone would feel justified in saying I have to come up with my own explanation for this other object. Well, I don't think so. This is whatever it is and I do not have to identify it, other than I know it is not the airliner type plane that hit the tower. I could speculate on it and that would be that it serves the purpose of a flying bomb. I do not think it was meant to be seen, but once it was realized that it was, it would have been difficult to just ignore it.

I cropped it down to the important part, which is this shape of an object that just so happens to seem to correspond to about when something would have hit, if there was something of an external source that created the big explosion.




posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Now.....just how is the so-called "official story" incorrect???
I can't say what it was exactly that the person meant because it is a quote in a book, Covering Catastrophe: Broadcast Journalists Report September 11. I took it to mean that the plane made an adjustment to head more towards the right, meaning to the person piloting the airliner type plane. I would be quick to assume this because of the same sort of thing I saw, which was what I commented on back then whenever I described what I saw. It made an abrupt change in the direction it was headed, just as it flew overhead of the point which was the source of what I was observing, which would have been the extreme southern end of Battery Park. That was to the right, where before, it was headed towards a point in the Hudson River. As it happened, the thought that immediately came to mind that it was a radio control signal and was not made by a human being inside the plane.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


A quick Google search for "United 175 ground track", and this image showed up.

911research.wtc7.net...

Also, a link to the PDF file from the NTSB, where that "Figure 1" comes from:

www.gwu.edu...

A compilation of the overall recorded radar track. (SInce this ONE hijacked airplane had its transponder "ON" the entire flight....just code changed. Made it easier to track continually, even though it was temporarily confusing as it flew from ARTCC sector to sector, in the real time of the event. Afterwards, the radar tapes could be checked and compiled at leisure).

The large scale makes specific details harder to pick out. But, looks perfectly reasonable to me, and I don't see a need for a "right" turn. Not from the point of deviation, and turn Eastbound back towards NYC which, as you can see, occurred in the vicinity of Allentown, PA (KABE). From the Allentown VORTAC (code is 'FJC') along a direct airway to the JFK VORTAC (Jet 146, from my chart) is only 77 NM (nautical miles). This is well within reception distance, when at any significant altitude. He flew South a bit, towards Philly....then turned more Easterly, then Northeasterly, towards NYC. ALl the while, he had not only the navigation references from the onboard systems, (the FMC) but certainly could tune any number of VORs to use, for guidance....as they'd lkely planned this out, ahead of time.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


A quick Google search for "United 175 ground track", and this image showed up.

911research.wtc7.net...

Also, a link to the PDF file from the NTSB, where that "Figure 1" comes from:

www.gwu.edu...


Weed,

This link:

Radar Data Impact Speed Study

has, as its last image, the last 55 seconds of UA 175's flight over northeastern Staten Island and crossing the bay enroute to impact.

There is really no doubt as to the path of the aircraft. Radar data from Newark showed clearly the altitudes, speeds and headings of the aircraft. For anyone to claim or suggest it actually came in on a different trajectory or from a different direction than that which has been established is mistaken at best and silly at worst.
edit on 11-10-2010 by trebor451 because: cut excess



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I used beacons that are picked up in X-Plane to navigate. I have a sort of chart, that I made, posted that has these way-points.
media.abovetopsecret.com...
What I mean is that I am aware of the map, and made my own by superimposing it over the Google Earth map. The one on abovetopsecretmedia is one of them, that shows the whole route. I made more detailed larger scale maps to. I have spent a lot of time studying the alleged flight 175 path, and flying it in the X-Plane simulation, or "video game" if you must.
The "turn" I was describing was not so much a turn, really, at least to me, but just a sudden change, just enough to go from going straight up the river, to going inland just enough to clip a building. What you are describing are the major turns and I have studied then enough to fly it (simulated).



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 12:11 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?


Precisely if it were a supposed "inside job", how would it look?

They would plant a big fat truck bomb in the bottom of the WTC, just like before.

And they'd blame it on Saddam.

Far easier, far less risky, and it would get the target they wanted, Iraq, and not the target which was forced upon them. The best explanation for 9/11 is Islamic fundamentalists crashing hijacked aircraft.

I'm no fan of Dick Cheney and his people in the slightest, but their conspiracy is right there in the open.

Dick Cheney didn't do 9/11, but he did transmogrify it into an excuse to blow up Iraq.
edit on 12-10-2010 by mbkennel because: add more text.



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Is it just possible that the terrorists threatened the pilots to fly into the towers.
I know people are going to say ' If a terrorist told me to fly the plane into a highly populated area, I'd crash it somewhere where no one is'.
But under that kinda pressure, by men with weapons, this probably didn't cross their mind.

Just a theory.

Cheers
Brady



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Please elaborate, on the comments from the helicopter pilot/passenger.
I guess I did not answer the question. One good way to explain where the chopper was is to watch this video.

The plane (out of frame) hits, and a few seconds later the chopper is seen flying past the tower. The comments were by the people inside that chopper. They took off from Linden airfield and cut across to the main bay just south and west of the Statue of Liberty, then headed up the river to go past the WTC. Just as they were about to pass the towers was when the second plane hit, which they could see coming towards them.
Here is some of the video they took.



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by GetRadNZ
 

Is it just possible that the terrorists threatened. . .?
My suggestion to anyone wondering about 911 would be to not have the word "terrorist" included in your vocabulary. The most well know member of the alleged 911 hijackers, Mohammed Atta, lived about two miles from me and a friend of mine knew him and had business with him on a daily bases, so I know as, at least to me, indisputable fact, that he was here in Venice Florida and not in Portland Maine, or Boston, or New York. Of course that only works with me and I am familiar with the people involved, and the nature of their relationship, which is not something I especially want to broadcast. To anyone else, you might take it as the word of someone who is not known to have a habit of, or reason to, make things up like this.I take the topic of 911 seriously even if I don't write about it a lot. I do things about it, none the less, like researching it through (as I mentioned previously) 3d virtual representations which I have an ongoing project in.


edit on 12-10-2010 by jmdewey60 because: improve sentence structure



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
The most well know member of the alleged 911 hijackers, Mohammed Atta, lived about two miles from me and a friend of mine knew him and had business with him on a daily bases, so I know as, at least to me, indisputable fact, that he was here in Venice Florida and not in Portland Maine, or Boston, or New York. Of course that only works with me and I am familiar with the people involved, and the nature of their relationship, which is not something I especially want to broadcast. To anyone else, you might take it as the word of someone who is not known to have a habit of, or reason to, make things up like this.I take the topic of 911 seriously even if I don't write about it a lot. I do things about it, none the less, like researching it through (as I mentioned previously) 3d virtual representations which I have an ongoing project in.


Really? Did your "friend" share this information with the FBI? The CIA? When was the last time your "friend" saw the terrorist Atta?

On September 7, Atta flew from Fort Lauderdale to Baltimore: US Air flt. 2719.

On September 8th, he accessed his travelocity.com account that was accessed from IP address: 204.120.54.1, 17:31:07-18:13:55, and a reservation was made on US Air flt 2979 from BWI to Boston on 9th September 2001 that cost: $244.75



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 
Yes my friend was interviewed by the FBI several times.
The last time my friend saw Atta was at 4 pm on 9-10-01.
What is the source of your information?
The story as I understood it was that he drove his car to Portland and they found all kinds of incriminating evidence in it when they found it at the airport parking lot.


edit on 12-10-2010 by jmdewey60 because: more info



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Six Sigma
 
Yes my friend was interviewed by the FBI several times.
The last time my friend saw Atta was at 4 pm on 9-10-01.
What is the source of your information?
The story as I understood it was that he drove his car to Portland and they found all kinds of incriminating evidence in it when they found it at the airport parking lot.



Actually, your friend is mistaken about the day.On September 9th, Atta rented a Nissan Altima at Alamo, Logan Intl. Airport, 18:08, Boston, MA, using his VISA card - $86.23.

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

On September 10th, Atta was actually at a FAST GREEN ATM in Portland Maine. This was verified via video at the ATM machine. (a little after 8:30 pm)



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 



Actually, your friend is mistaken. . .
"Actually"?
Do you know that for certain? I mean did you know Atta personally, and you followed him as he went around using his card to make purchases? If not, you should not be so certain about my friend being wrong.
Are you trying to make me upset? My friend would be very upset if that person knew you were making these claims in contradiction to this person's testimony. Personally, I am offended by your language I think you must know nothing about the psychology of a person who had gone through this kind of experience. There is no mistake here on my end.

The file you linked to looks to be evidence submitted in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. It has Atta selling his car in Florida and flying to Baltimore. Then going to Boston from Baltimore by air. He rented a car in Boston, then drove to Portland and checked into a motel. The next morning he drove to the Portland airport and left the car in a parking garage. He flew from there to Logan, then boarded a plane for Los Angles.
That's different than what I had read earlier, which was that he drove his car from Florida to Portland. Apparently the story was revised at some point from when the original “official” version was written.
So, I don't know about this info, and it could have been a double leaving an electronic trail for later purposes. The point I was making is that people who knew the Atta who was associated with the ongoing enterprise at the Venice Airport, saw him going about business as usual right up to shortly before the plane crashes on 9/11.
edit on 12-10-2010 by jmdewey60 because: Additional info added later, after reading pdf in above post



posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



Mohammed Atta appearing to be "going about business as usual"?? Gee, isn't that the exact WAY someone who, in one sort of parlance, cold be referred to as a "double agent" would behave??

Someone who we've seen only last year, who harbored a grudge against the USA, and lived and worked here, "under the radar", until his plan was implemented (and failed, in this case)?


Faisal Shahzad, the 31-year-old, MBA-graduate son of an eminent Pakistani father. Shahzad rented a second-floor apartment (for $1,150 a month) in a three-storey tenement similar to others on the block. Recently renovated, his was the cleanest. Even so, its pale-biscuit siding was gimcrack vinyl, its chalk-white trim a flimsy metal. The garage in the back, where he assembled the bomb inside his Nissan Pathfinder, was missing its door and guarded by a barking dog on a heavy chain.

This apartment was a month-long way station for Shahzad. He spent most of his 10 years in America in Shelton, Connecticut, a slice of exurbia 15 minutes north of Bridgeport. His house there is empty and strewn with discarded toys and two lawn mowers. A front window is smashed, another above the front door gone. He abandoned it exactly one summer ago. His income as an account analyst – a position which pays on average $50,000 a year and sometimes as much as $70,000 – wasn't enough to sustain making payments on the $218,400 mortgage. Shahzad's American career began in disappointment and was mired in that house.


www.guardian.co.uk...

Faisal Shahzad, in case you've forgotten is the infamous "Times Square Bomber". Recently convicted.

Lived what appeared to be a bucolic, quite ordinary "American" lifestyle, all the while becoming more and more angry, simmering just below the surface. Sound familar?? Like, Atta perhaps?


If Atta were still alive, and was captured, say, in the act before completing what he'd planned.....if the plot had been uncovered in time....what sort of attitude do you think he might have adopted, at trial? If convicted??

Similar to Shahzad's?:


(He)....accepted a life sentence with a smirk Tuesday and warned that Americans can expect more bloodshed at the hands of Muslims.

"Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun," 31-year-old Faisal Shahzad told a federal judge. "Consider me the first droplet of the blood that will follow."


news.yahoo.com...

(He -Shahzad- got it a bit wrong, there. The "war" with Muslims started long, long ago.....)



posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
I did not just pick a date and time out of my hat. These are specific and there are records that verify it, but of course not available to the general public. I do not, and have not, bought into the propaganda about terrorist hijackers. I realized it was a false flag attack as soon as I saw the smoke coming out of the north tower on TV. Alex Jones had been talking about an eminent event that would kill thousands of Americans, and I knew that was it, when I saw it. Then I saw on TV, a camera searching into the distance, looking away from the WTC and to the south, until it found what it was looking for. This demonstrates a foreknowledge. Then I heard from my friend things about a person who were supposed to be flying one of the planes. The evidence otherwise seems rather transparent to the point of silliness, to me. I am trying to help out for those who are interested in the truth about things. I can not be held responsible for those who would rather ignore it, and I feel that I have discharged my obligation towards mankind in general.



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Doctor G
 
The article was funny. As if someone read up on flying and made it up.

No skill is needed to crash a 757/767 into a large building. The 2/3 of the pilots who can't hit a target the size of a runway, you may want to avoid flying with those guys. The terrorists scored 75 percent, Nila's letter writing friend's pilots scored 33 percent. Does not look for for those pilots who imply they are flying us around in airliners, but can't hit a simple target as big as a runway. Wait, did those expert real airline pilots who failed have angry passengers trying to stop them?

I have worked and flown with hundreds of pilots, not one would miss targets as big as the buildings on 911. Not one of them agree with the implications of this nonsensical paper. There was one in pilot training who could not get on speed, but he always hit the runway, he was going too fast. Going faster makes it easier to line up for him, but you can't land when you are that hot.

www.veteranstoday.com...

This line proves the article is nonsense, as do many others.


And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!
I was laughing when I saw this years ago, the first time the article failed. It was not IFR on 911. Maybe Nila thinks having an IFR flight plan means something but he is wrong. "That is all you have" is total nonsense; the earth is your ADI, you don't need instruments.

This statement proves Nila is not a pilot with experience flying airliners or large Jets. The weather on 911 was VFR. There is no need to look inside at instruments, those are for when you can't see. On 911 the weather was clear, no need to look inside the aircraft. You put one hand on the control column, and one on the throttles and have at it. The WTC towers will be seen from 100 miles. This statement makes the entire article complete nonsense.

Don't get me wrong, I used a composite check when I fly (instruments and outside), you have to use instruments all the time to build up your ability to use instruments when you need them. In the weather they are your earth! Do you need them in VFR? No. As confidence maneuvers in CFIC (instructor upgrade in the USAF) we would fly patterns and landings without any instruments except the engine instruments, and the earth in VFR conditions. The flying done on 911, no instruments required.

Someone mused the real pilots may of been flying under duress, the real pilots were dead. Flight 77 was taken over and the on the FDR you can see a pilot who was sloppy and below acceptable standards for speed control, bank angle and pitch control. If you flew as bad as the terrorists flew you might consider suicide. Both 77 and 93 terrorist pilots showed skill below the skill of an average never flown before American kid; I have flown may orientation flights and all the kids who flew, did better than what I saw of Hani and Flight 93's pilot from FDR information. And the terrorists trained for years, but what do you expect from suicide pilots.



a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties
Is that why the terrorist pilots studied for years and got FAA licenses to fly? The article is nonsense, ask a real pilot about it before falling for the false information from someone who does not understand IFR.

Most bright people who are non-pilots could fly better than the terrorists did on 911 - all of you bright people take a bow, you can fly better than 66 percent of the pilots Nila presents! Good job bright people!



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Just dropping in to check the score. I see it still remains the same after FIFTY-THREE 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 -


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..."

And in case you need a reminder of the data as set by Boeing due to flight and wind tunnel testing -








Source -
www.pprune.org...



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 

RADAR and video evidence of flight 175 going 510 knots at impact and the crash at the Pentagon with airspeeds found in the FDR prove 767/757 can go over Vmo and crash before falling apart. No one has proved it was not 175 and 77.

The fake Vg diagram is the most anti-intellectual deed I have seen related to aerodynamics. You can't make up a Vg diagram using a sample Vg diagram by placing numbers where you want. It is fake, a lie to make up anything from your fake Vg diagram. It is deception to say the Vg diagram has anything to do with Boeing or the speed you placed on a sample Vg diagram.



Exceeding Vmo/Mmo can pose a threat to exceeding design structural integrity and design stability & control criteria of the airplane. At speeds less than Vmo/Mmo the airplane’s flight characteristics have been confirmed by flight testing to meet FAR requirements. At speeds in excess of Vmo/Mmo, however, normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured. www.biggles-software.com...
Boeing does not say the aircraft breaks up at high speed.

RADAR and video prove flight 175 was going 510 knots, and made up Vg diagrams are used to mislead.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Since you are using pprune as referance:




Which begs the question - if the Pilots who are members of the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Club say it is too difficult/impossible for even THEM to hit the towers in a 767 traveling at 470 knots, why they believe it would be easier for a remote-controlled aircraft to hit the towers, what with the inherent data-link latency and restrictions of that technology in 2001, one can only scratch their head over. So, they claim these were "beefed-up" aircraft, structurally and engine-wise with remote-controlled capabilities added to the airframe. Which takes us back to the opening post's question - "Aircraft Control and Barber Pole." If "Ralph", who is most assuredly Bob Balsamo, ever comes back, I would like him to answer the question if conventional pilots could not control an aircraft at those speeds, what makes him think a remote-controlled one would, with a modified or-not 767? Methinks Ralph/Bob/Tiffany won't be back to answer.


www.pprune.org...

The rest of the thread: www.pprune.org...



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Since you are using pprune as referance:




Which begs the question - if the Pilots who are members of the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Club say it is too difficult/impossible for even THEM to hit the towers in a 767 traveling at 470 knots, why they believe it would be easier for a remote-controlled aircraft to hit the towers, what with the inherent data-link latency and restrictions of that technology in 2001, one can only scratch their head over. So, they claim these were "beefed-up" aircraft, structurally and engine-wise with remote-controlled capabilities added to the airframe. Which takes us back to the opening post's question - "Aircraft Control and Barber Pole." If "Ralph", who is most assuredly Bob Balsamo, ever comes back, I would like him to answer the question if conventional pilots could not control an aircraft at those speeds, what makes him think a remote-controlled one would, with a modified or-not 767? Methinks Ralph/Bob/Tiffany won't be back to answer.


www.pprune.org...

The rest of the thread: www.pprune.org...





Thanks for posting that Ivan.

It appears there is no one there willing to support the claims of those who blindly support the OS and such absurd claims that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150.

Except of course a person named "ADDIS77" and "GR53", both registering at PPRuNe Sept 2010, both from the Washington DC area, both obsessed with Rob Balsamo and Pilots For 9/11 Truth, and both registering to only post in your linked thread.

Hmmm, what are the odds?


Now, let us know when you or the others who feel a V-G diagram cannot be plotted when the V-Speeds are known, will post in this thread to correct the pilots who have done just that based on simple aeronautical knowledge.

www.pprune.org...

Again -

I am flattered your source thinks I'm Rob Balsamo or perhaps one of the many real pilots listed here -

pilotsfor911truth.org...

But the fact remains, you and your kind still have yet to provide one verified pilot who support the claims made in this thread that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150.

Let us know when you find just one. Those who make excuse for the OS have failed for more than 9 years, and for more than FIFTY-THREE pages in this thread alone.


edit on 20-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join