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: 9
141
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

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 with a high success rate, the chances of terrorists with half the experience pulling off such a manoeuvre are slimmer than Posh Spice on an all-Müller diet. But I agree, if they did it (despite failing a number of times) it still shows such a manoeuvre isn't outside the realms of possibility.

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

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Nathan-D]



This is the definition of frustrating: ADD MORE EVIDENCE for 9/11 that makes the Government THEORY more difficult to believe, and it's proof that the "Truthers are MORE crazy."

Yes, I'm sure Robot Yetti are more likely since the maneuvers are difficult for real pilots.... but really, it just means the "theory that untrained Al Qaeda pilots did it" is less likely -- as if that needed more proof.

I think we need a 3d Hologram of Dick Cheney and George Bush flipping the switch on the autopilot and the real-time recording of their movements with a clock on the wall showing them guiding the planes before we could even have a show trial, which would likely get them a few Billion Dollars for pain and suffering as seems to be the practice in our Reich Wing courts.


>> Is it too difficult to notice that MOST modern planes already have BUILT IN, the ability to be steered remotely? They could remotely steer a plane without using holograms or Yetti or alien aircraft in 1965. Operation Northwoods had the technology decades ago. I can go down to radioshack and get something that can steer a gas-engine radio airplane and add a camera on it -- it might cost about $400 to $700 to do it in a 2 mile range.


>> Flight simulators are pretty close to real conditions -- they can be used in many cases to keep up the flight hours for pilots. Are they perfect? No. But steering the real thing isn't going to be any EASIER either.




posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Yes...it's too difficult to notice, because it ISN'T TRUE!


Is it too difficult to notice that MOST modern planes already have BUILT IN, the ability to be steered remotely?


But, this particular misconception/(lie?) seems to never go away. What a shame....



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
3) Insurance

Why did Silverstein buy terrorism insurance ? Easy because the people loaning him the money required it. In fact Silverstein tried to buy LESS insurance , but the lenders forced him to purchase more to protect theit investments


Can't help but wonder if the fact that terrorists ALREADY tried to take down a WTC tower in 1993 had something to do with that requirement.
Everyone pretends that 9/11/01 was unprecedented. In scale, yes. The targets? Hardly.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by triplescorpio
 



Originally posted by triplescorpio
...and all the rest its so predictable the comments that are text book here at ats about 9/11??????????

pure manipulation for self gratification !

trust me youve discovered nothing you found no hidden clue and your just wrong on so many levels but hey that would take all the fun and terror out of this day and make it what it was sad...

it was a sad day get over yourselves

and duh i know my words are futile in a thread like this but trust me i saw the second plane i heard the f N sound it made i saw it DID YOU??


Thanks, triplescorpio. All those architects, firemen, pilots and other witnesses who went on record using their real identities have just been trying to get one over on us "truthers." Thanks for clearing that up. Guess we can all just go home now and forget about all the self-gratification we could have worrying over nothing.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


ahh the fACE OF IGNORANCE DENY THE EYEWITNESS AND BELEIVE A WELL WHOMEVER ?????


SUITS YOUR PURPOSE......

ENJOY THE SCIENTISHINS OR WHAT HAVE YOU



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 




Errrmmm....appeal to "authority"?



All those [skip].... pilots ....[skip] who went on record using their real identities...


Don't forget the 'grandaddy' of them all, in the realm of the very 'public' pilots!

John Lear.

Remember his claims??

[hint: super-dooper space weapons...that don't really exist...]

Afraid that the ranting of just a handful, even IF they have some qualifications within a particular field of expertise, doesn't cut it when faced with the multitude of thousands of others, experts and experieinced in the same fields, who vehemently disagree --- even laugh at their antics.

The guy who wrote the piece featured in the OP is yet another....and it will take some time, but I will be able to dissect his nonsense and erroneous claims, and set-ups in due course.


Because, "all those" people, continually claimed?? A mere drop in the ocean compared to the Tidal Wave ( how's my simile
) of others --- any profession will always have a few crackpots.

YES, sometimes even

...architects, firemen . . . and other witnesses . . .



BTW. . ."other witnesses"? Not an "appeal to authority" there -- of course, because many of those aren't the most reliable. Just used, as needed, by the various "TM" sites in order to bolster their BS.






[edit on 16 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


weedwhacker - when are you gonna give it up? You ignore or deny any evidence that doesn't fit your view and now suddenly you're a career avaition pilot whose anonymous word counts more than all of the pilots who have gone on record against the OS!


Originally posted by weedwhacker

There is a Dutch documentary about 9/11, was about one hour long, and is broken up into the YouTube "bit-sized" bits. There is a segment floating around, of the one below, that has subtitles in English. This one (Part 4) is what I've found, just in first searches. It IS in Dutch, unfortunately. But, this is an Internation Board, and I'm sure we have some native Dutch speakers out there....

This shows some very average pilots (at least, I think they have SOME flying experience) in a fairly generic full motion simulator re-creating the flights into the Pentagon....three times, each time hitting the target with relative ease.

Now --- granted, this is NOT a B-757 simulator. It does resemble a jet, although ithe panel is in such darkenss, can't pick out any specifics.


What's the point of presenting a Dutch video that we cannot understand and then saying that you don't know if they even have any flying experience? And then go on to admit that it's not a B-757 simulator. What is the point?



Important to address yet ANOTHER earlier in-thread ention, re: AAL 77 at the Pentagon: That of "ground effect", and the notion that it flew for "over a mile" at low enough altitude to have ground effect become a factor.

IT DID NOT.


It's typical of 911 debunkers to focus on individual bits of information/disinformation and argue them out of context. Imagine arguing that a brick chimney isn't actually burning while ignoring the fact that the rest of the house is consumed in flames.

Despite any attempts by "truthers" to understand what actually happened on the day which does lead to some whacky theories, what they really want is a proper, public investigation and those responsible brought to trial.

When that is done, we can quit all the surmising and second guessing and start putting this behind us.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I'm just curious do you debunkers have any qualified people besides Nist?Because they were caught lying numerous times so they don't count.like it shows here.

First lie-Lied about the molten steel.
www.youtube.com...

Second lie-Lied about explosions.I'm sure there's more I just can't think of them right now.
www.youtube.com...

Do you debunkers have any Firemen,policemen,people that worked in the buildings,families of the victims,architects,engineers,scientists,Demolitions experts,ex fbi,Generals(yes really),MEMBERS OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION..do you have any of these type of people coming forward or just your fellow debunkers to back you up?Who do you debunkers got on your side besides Nist?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


The "point" was simple:

The ease with which the people who participated int he simulator demonstration were able to fly and hit the Pentagon, simply by visually looking, and steering the machine!

It is irrelevant what TYPE of airplane the simulator happens to be --- I pointed out that it wasn't a B-757 just to keep that clear, so no one started in on that as a "complaint".

From memory, I had seen a version (as I mentioned) with English subtitles, and I didn't want to rely on my memory to be specific about hte people doing the flying...as I recall, I THINK they were college students, with minimal flying experince under their belts...will try to find the other version. Also, my posting it, mentioned (sort of an appeal) that there will likely be many people on ATS who will speak the language, and they may come along soon and substantiate points raised in the documentary.


Sorry if the clear demonstration of just how EASY it is to steer a modern jetliner didn't get across. In many ways, in the simulator, there is a slight disadvantage, compared to the real deal. It is usually a bit more difficult to 'fly' the sim. The motion probably wasn't on...guessing, because most sims will 'crash' (they just stop...they freeze) when they determine that the 'airplane' has hit the ground...this is when the motion is activated.

Smart thing (and since it flew right through the "building" simulation it suggests that) the motion was off. The sim itself can be damaged --- the hydraulic jacks, and equipment, if the maneuvers are too extreme...hence, it has safeties to stop it, before it goes too far.
~~~~~

(I know, they edit to cut in shots of the exterior of the sim, moving...doesn't mean that those shots are OF the actual demonstration....could just be another crew operating the sim, BEFORE their turn inside, with the camera...)





[edit on 16 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ickylevel
 


IN THE ORIGINAL POST?
is that because it doesnt further the dellusion.?????



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Yes...it's too difficult to notice, because it ISN'T TRUE!


Is it too difficult to notice that MOST modern planes already have BUILT IN, the ability to be steered remotely?


But, this particular misconception/(lie?) seems to never go away. What a shame....


Here is a commercial Aviation forum discussing just such a thing; www.airliners.net...

Basically; YES they can both guide and land a plane. However, it isn't often done except in emergency situations because to BE SAFE, you have to match FOR LANDINGS, you have to have the guidance systems matched on the airplane and at the airport.

If you are talking about a KNOWN aircraft -- all the equipment is there. And flying a plane is less complicated TELEMETRY-WISE than landing. So, if' you've got a few million invested in a covert op, and don't worry about the FAA or LANDING -- peace of cake.

All the electronics is there to guide a plane, it just isn't often used.

>> Now, if rumors are true about that avionics plane seen at both the WTC and the site where that plane plowed into the ground but somehow the engine ended up miles away,... well that makes it easier.



They could have done this in 1965. The main problem with the maneuver is the speed and the bearing of the plane--from a pilots perspective. NOT electronics. I can get a robot-vacuum cleaner to do my floor unattended for about $200 called a "Roomba."



>> Do the "truthers" have to solve 100% of this mystery in order to get an investigation?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
I'm just curious do you debunkers have any qualified people besides Nist?Because they were caught lying numerous times so they don't count.like it shows here.

First lie-Lied about the molten steel.
www.youtube.com...

Second lie-Lied about explosions.I'm sure there's more I just can't think of them right now.
www.youtube.com...

Do you debunkers have any Firemen,policemen,people that worked in the buildings,families of the victims,architects,engineers,scientists,Demolitions experts,ex fbi,Generals(yes really),MEMBERS OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION..do you have any of these type of people coming forward or just your fellow debunkers to back you up?Who do you debunkers got on your side besides Nist?



NIST also LIED about the rate at which Building 7 fell. Once there was video, they had to backtrack and admit that it fell at "near free-fall speed." Of course, dropping a building isn't like dropping a rock, but when you see floors collapse and keeping up with debris -- that's pretty much as fast as any demolition will drop it.

Just an FYI to add to your list. The NIST isn't ALL bankrupt -- just the Bush appointed leaders. You can compartmentalize any organization and have the Head Honcho pick and choose what reports get published. I'm sure engineer talking about static weight on a load-bearing wall would accurately display the figures.

>> Anyway, they LIED us into a war -- which killed more people. So there isn't any proof that the Bush administration had integrity. We can see they had the motive. We only quibble about the Means.

Wire a building, MAYBE remote control an airplane -- maybe not. Does it matter? They had 72 warnings that an attack was immanent. About half a dozen that pointed to the WTC. More than 6 countries warning. Then they had to engage all the fighter jets on that specific day, and the WTC video cams had to choose that time to stop working. Do we need to cover the 100 coincidences of the day where ONLY THAT DAY, things were really, really strange?

Then of course, there is clear examples of coverup: There is no possible way they only had one camera at the Pentagon, and we've got reports from various Hotels, ATMs and Gas stations of confiscated video.

Then, the whole "crime scene" at the Pentagon, the WTC and the field where the plane got shot down -- oh, I"m sorry, disintegrated in mid-air or bounced a mile off the ground. Whatever. The whole thing was miserably botched and all the important evidence shipped off and then the administration dragged their feet on ANY independent investigation -- and the Committee, that they put together ended up writing a book about how it was all a whitewash.

>> And BEFORE 9.11, anyone paying attention would know that Dick Cheney and George Herber Walker Bush were about the two most corrupt people to ever enter Washington -- and that's saying something.


DO I NEED to go into Cheney's war profiteering, Asbestos profiteering, offshore bank account exploits? Do we need to discuss the Bush families work with war profiteering, banks that lose billions, investments by enemies and crooks? The Republicans chose the two politicos who managed to steal the most money and THAT was their basis for the "best and brightest."

Let It Happen On Purpose or used a dang Android to do it. Who cares? Bush and Cheney are neck deep in the 9/11 conspiracy and we are still being hurt by the coverup.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
911 was "shock and awe" plain and simple...multiple things accomplished at once, financial, political, social and cultural all colluded in a single few hours to create a crux moment for the American people.
I was there..i saw the 2nd plane hit..I am also an engineer and I can tell you those buildings did not fall like that from planes hitting them.
It is the sole reliance on the huge denial space that the majority of Americans have inside of them that "our government would not murder 3000 innocents to move policy forward or usurp the American taxpayer for all its worth." That is utter BS!
The facts are the facts from the mis-treatment of the largest crime site in history-(all the major structural beams broken neatly in 30 ft chunks shipped off to a Chinese landfill within 24 hours)to the over 12,000 put options purchased in the stock market the day before (by KBR and Friends) and everything in between.
Hell!- we spent over 130 million on investigating Clinton/Lewisnsky and only 3 mill (and another 12 mill cause people were outraged) investigating 911...
I know it sucks! I love and have served my country well as well as my fathers, fathers fathers, fathers....



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
STEERING a plane is not so hard.

FINDING out how to get to where you want to go, is quite a bit more difficult. And doing so on a modern plane -- I'm sure it's a lot more difficult than a Twin-Engine Cessna which I flew with my dad many years ago.


Just imagine, some guy who was trying to learn how to pilot a 767 looking at all those dials, all those headings, and navigating a few hundred miles in controlled airspace through a city, and hitting a target at 600 MPH after a very tight curve.

The Pentagon hit was a bit trickier, because I don't think you can SEE it from the angle they approached, that means following instruments. They did some loop and came from an angle where buildings obscured the approach -- even though the Pentagon is WIDE, it isn't tall.

>> NOt sure if I'm convinced about a missile, but they had to skirt a few powerlines and poles and hills after that steep dive. Having an explosive charge on the Pentagon itself and maybe flying over the rooftop - that would have convinced most any surprised onlooker in my book.

Those 5 frames of video the Pentagon finally released -- it's hard to say what it is beyond; NOT A 767 -- it's too small or too far away from the detonation point. Doesn't mean a 767 didn't hit the Pentagon. Just seems very fishy that's all. But for me, the WTC building 7 is a clincher for "rigged to collapse." There isn't any theory on Gods Green Earth that sounds more plausible than; "demolition."

So always consider that in any theoretical Scenario; Bush and Cheney, corrupt and traitorous as Stalin's pet skunk (if he had one). Building 7 HAD to be rigged with charges. WE got into a bogus Resource war with Iraq AND Afghanistan because of it. We got the Patriot Act written BEFORE the EVent. Cheney had the NSA spying on everyone BEFORE 9/11. Then we had a collapse of the Financial System on November of 2008 with all of Bush's buddies on board -- another controlled demolition?

What did these people NOT DO to screw this country? 9/11 was the least of it, but it's psychologically important to understand that when the Robber Barons don't have a convenient natural catastrophe like Katrina -- sometimes they need to CREATE the THREAT.

The Korean and Vietnam wars are now ADMITTEDLY started by False Flags -- another thing to think about IN CONTEXT.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
911 is failed black ops

Those who did it and those who cover it, is doing a sloppy job.
Gotta get rid of these inefficient guys before it leak out more.
Few heart failure, few carwreck, a yacht lost in the sea hmm what else...better let the hitman decide.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Sorry, but your experience pales in comparison...


I'm sure it's a lot more difficult than a Twin-Engine Cessna which I flew with my dad many years ago.


Actually, your Dad's twin Cessna (what? A 310?) Or, 303 (cheaper), 340 (pressurized, souped-up 310)? A 402/404? (mostly an Air Taxi-type useage, not many private parties own them for personal use...)...or the 421? Nice, if your Dad has big bucks...

...Anyway...no, it is actually a heckuva lot EASIER in a modern airliner...and specifically the Boeing 757/767.

Can you type on a keyboard? Can you read a map, and stuff? Know how to use a computer?

(Well, one and three are obvious "yesses"). . . now, read a map, find the 'identifier' --- your Dad, he's a pilot? He will know what that means --- and type those in to your onboard computer. We call this the "FMC", for Flight Management computer. It is accessed via the keyboard, and other buttons, on the "CDU" (Control Display Unit).

Wanna see? Why, I can even give YOU, and everyone reading this, a quick and easy lesson. Would be much easier IF I had you in person, and had a training set-up...just as the HIJACKERS spent some time doing, as they prepared for that day, on 11 September.

brb...gonna post this, and return on edit, so I don't lose my work....
~~~~

OK...(another) free lesson for everyone...


First, the CDU:



OK...this is basically what they had on the 757/767...and on the B-737-300 and newer, too. Slight variations, depending on manufacturer --- different companies build the system for the 737 than for the 757/767 --- but the differences are VERY minor. (This is a later verison, since the text on the screen is white, not green as in older ones...)

We'll dispense with all the initialization stuff...because we're already 'in flight'. When taken over, the airplanes were on the "active" flight plan that had already been programmed in.

OK...see the square key labeled "LEGS"? You press that, and the screen changes...sorry, don't have a screenshot of that. You type in using the alpha keys, and the letters appear in what's called the "scratchpad".

They will appear right below where it says "SUBMENU" in the above image.

Once your scratchpad "word" or entry is complete, you simply press the top left side button there...you see six, each side of the screen? Those are called "line select keys".

As long as what you typed is formatted properly, the computer accepts it, and enters it on the screen. In our case, let's say we want to change course to Washington, DC. Aeronautical charts depict a VOR/TAC there, and its code letters are "DCA". So, we type in DCA, and line select to 1L. (top left).

The computer searches its database, finds DCA, accepts....and then you press "EXEC". (For "execute"...acts like an "enter" key on your computer).

So, we use the "LEGS" page because it's easiest, and will bring the new waypoint we just entered to the top, and once we "execute" it, it now defines a new "active leg".

All of this stuff is displayed on your instrument panel...the EHSI (that's for electronic HSI...your Dad knows what a horizontal situation indicator is, correct?)

Here's one showing a certain display, of several you can choose:



That happens to be a next-generation Boeing 737 instrument panel, from appearances. Still, it is very similar in the way to do it.

It is all very intuitive to use, in real life...in fact, all these words aren't necessary if you could just TOUCH it and USE it yourself...like the hijackers had a chance to do.

Now....they were more familiar with THIS sort of HSI depiction:



...as your Dad likely is. But, that's the beauty of the electronic display units nowadays...they are versatile, and are selectable, very easily.

So...the hijackers could select the EHSI display mode they wished, whichever they were used to interpreting.

The first one, above, we call the "MAP" mode, because it gives us a "bird's eye" representation, for orientation purposes. Like looking down on a map. The other HSI below it, is just an electronic version of what's sometimes termed the "round dials"...the 'hard' instruments, before the use of versatile multi-function video screens become common.

So..once the waypoint (DCA in this case) is slected, and executed, when it's "active" the computer draws a magenta line, from the airplane symbol (the triangle, near the middle) to the waypoint. The airplane can be steered by hand, or by autopilot (heading select)...and the A/P can also be ingaged (LNAV, or 'lateral navigation' mode) to follow the track to the selected waypoint.

Here is a typical "MCP" (mode control panel)...in this case a Boeing 777, but again, only minor differences:



All navigating via A/P is accomplished using the controls here. Again, they are NOT difficult to master, and anyone who has ALREADY learned to fly ( just for the 'peanut gallery' comment about "flight school"
) would take to it very quickly.

However, even a novice, like many on ATS, could be shown in a couple of hours, and would grasp the basics too.

Now, armend with ALL of that information, you can put it together to hopefully better read and understand THIS next document I link:

NTSB Study of Autopilot, Navigation Equipment...

The activities that were recorded on the DFDRs of AAL 77 and UAL 93 are documented there, and the terms used in the NTSB report will now make more sense to those who've taken the time to read and learn from this post.....


~~~~~~~

Here's a bonus video, I found...apparently there's a sort of subculture of home simulator "pilots" out there....some more incredibly sophisticated programs than I knew existed!!! For the home! Quite realistic, considering...

Anyway, this is more of the initialization, set-up for takeoff, and the approach and landing...NONE of which the hijackers had to bother to learn, BTW!!

But, it shows graphically and in video a feel for how the CDU, and the MCP are used in real life. AND, a way to show where they are physically located, within a cockpit layout:



PS. I didn't choose the music!

PPS. Just out of curiosity, I looked up the "airports" for his "flight"...departure was Bologna, Italy, and destination was Milan.







[edit on 17 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I guess going to flight school is largely a waste of time seeing that it is so easy to fly these jets...

Maybe...Maybe Not



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Did I mention the hijackers never flew a 757 before?

But yet they flew them like professionals on 9/11.

There are too many unbelievable things that happened on 9/11.

There are way too many coincidences to be coincidental.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX
 


No but they had "flown" simulators for a B 737 - not the same but close enough as WEEDWHACKER can probably confirm (like driving a car
then going to a different model)

Several of the hijackers had taked lessons at Jet Tech flight school in Mesa Az including Hani Hanjour pilot of AA77

One of the topics - SHARP TURNS

None of them showed interest in landing a plane



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

No but they had "flown" simulators for a B 737 - not the same but close enough as WEEDWHACKER can probably confirm (like driving a car
then going to a different model)

Several of the hijackers had taked lessons at Jet Tech flight school in Mesa Az including Hani Hanjour pilot of AA77

One of the topics - SHARP TURNS

None of them showed interest in landing a plane



Correct.

Marwan al-Shehhi (flight 175) posed as a body guard for Atta. They both attended flight school in Florida logged several HUNDREDS of hours on a 727 simulator and they received their licenses by December 2000. They both also went to Opa-Locka Airport and practiced on a Boeing 727 simulator there as well.


[edit on 17-8-2010 by Six Sigma]




top topics



 
141
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join