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: 90
141
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weemadmental
 


I liked that KC-135 video, nice find. Funny, it's difficult sometimes to find just the right video, depends I guess on the search words used....like, I found that 727 by accident. It was a bonus to have the soundtrack on that, with the airspeed for that demo....

And of course, not over Vmo, but that's perfectly understandable. A 727 isn't quite as old as a 707/135 variant, but we're still talking (most likely) rolling off the assembly line in the 1960s sometime.

I was racking my memory (and what little 727 stuff I still have) to get the Vmo for it. Trip down memory lane, it was....the old "A/B config" switch, on the -200s. (You selected "A" or "B" based on your GTOW..takeoff weight...and that switched the circuits in the ADC...air data computer...to display different "barber pole" Vmo speeds, both for lower altitudes where it's in knots, and higher, above the airspeed/Mach changeover altitude, where it became the appropriate Mmo). Don't know anything about the 707, if it had similar system or not, sorry. (Not many of THOSE civilian old timers left, I imagine. Maybe a modern young AF guy or gal will read this, and chime in??)

Wonder if I still should continue on my demolish of the "precedents" I mentioned this morning.....eh, not yet. Only if goaded.....maybe this thread can now die peacefully, in its sleep...

....like my grandfather......(Not screaming in terror like the passengers in the car he was driving....). Nah, untrue, was just an old joke, adapted for use here. Too soon?? Poor taste?? Well, sue me......



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Your memory is pretty good for an old retired guy. The A/B switch is only on the -200s, since the -100 has a MTOW of 160,600 pounds and you only go to B setting when flight weight is 172,000 or more or zero fuel weight is136,000 or more. The -200 can go to 178,000 pounds MTOW and the 200B can go to 190,500. The basic Vmo on the 200 series is 350 knots at sea level, rising about a knot per 2 thousand feet so at 10,000, it's 355. Mmo is .90 at or above a pressure altitude of 26,500 feet. On the -100, the Mmo changeover altitude is 5,000 feet lower.
By the way, 727s are still in use. Tex Sutton uses -200s to haul really valuable thoroughbred horses from farm to track. As of three months ago, there were still 398 727s in commercial use, most as cargo carriers. World Airliner Census". Flight International: 26–49. 2010-08-24. Watch them while you can, though. They are going away, since they are Stage 2 noise category low bypass JT8D engined, and noise requirements are dooming them to a life in South America.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 



....noise requirements are dooming them to a life in South America.


Or Africa? A few have "hush kits", but I think the rules have tightened to where even that is insufficient anymore, for most jurisdictions in the western world....

Well, it's OK....building new airplnes helps the world's economy, anyway....



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
.....maybe this thread can now die peacefully, in its sleep...


We can only hope.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


yeah the 727 seems to be a really lovely aircraft to fly, wish i had the pleasure, nearest i come to the flight deck on this aircraft is in a museum, looks like it flys or rails, i mind seeing the airframe on the discovery channel on bruce dickinson (iron maidens front man) Flying Heavy Metal program, you can find the video here


I have seen a few here in Scotland, mainly cargo haulers, real nice takes off like a homesick angel but is a bit loud, lol still not as loud as the tristars though.

Donald Trump's personal run around was a Boeing 727, if your interested its for sale Here

Wee Mad




edit on 16/11/2010 by weemadmental because: spelling is terrible



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weemadmental
 



Thank you!


Ahh, memories. First 60 seconds, you can bet I flew that airplane at least once, over the years. (Wish someone could freeze frame/enhance to see the N-number). The "beauty shot" pass, when airborne, looks straight from a Continental advert circa 1984-early 1990s. (The logo on the tail? We called it the "meatball". Was smaller, and black, on the gold background, then changed to bigger, and red, around 1985-1986, ....until the logo you see today was introduced, blue/gold stylized globe, "Charles Atlas"-like. Early 1991; took some time to re-paint the whole fleet).

Also, first minute, quick clips from Micronesia, and the Continental "Air Mike" 727s. (You can see the "Continental House Flag"....stylized to represent routes, and incorporate flag of Micronesia, top fuselage aft, near the window exits)..

Here's Ship #743, taken in 1992. Part of the Air Mike fleet:



Ships 741-750 had the bigger JT9D-15 (versus -9s) engines. Heavier gross, beefed landing gear, etc.


Air Mike is now all B-737 NG (11 737-700 and -800s). Four 767s are called "Air Mike" (really, just "Pacific") in some references, but only because of the seating configuration (fewer Business First seats, more in Coach) than the ones for other routes, like S. America and Europe. This will all change shortly, I reckon, with the United merger....


Air Mike operates under its own Operating Certificate..sort of a "subsidiary" of the Main Line carrier. ( IN some ways, its "own little world", too...but that's an entirely whole other story....
). Just say "brown tree snakes" to anyone who's ever lived in/on Guam, to get a reaction!!

The merger with United will change this, and the "autonomy" will go away, as all Operating Certificates get merged into a single one.....



edit on 16 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 



....noise requirements are dooming them to a life in South America.


Or Africa? A few have "hush kits", but I think the rules have tightened to where even that is insufficient anymore, for most jurisdictions in the western world....

Well, it's OK....building new airplnes helps the world's economy, anyway....


We just looked at the Raibeck and Goodrich hush hits for the -200. Raisbeck is 1.8 million dollars while the net cost of the BFG kit is about $8Mill. For 8 mill you can get a decent A320. But you're right. ICAO has doomed the old trijet.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Jimb07
 

There seem to be two arguments in this thread; the first that it was impossible for a regular plane to fly in that way, and the second that it was impossible for the hijackers to pilot it. I was addressing the first argument in my post, but my view is much the same on the second. I accept it was improbable, but I've yet to be convinced it was impossible.
I think I have calmed down enough to try to post something here. If I think about it too much, then it gets very tough for me. What I mean is there is an emotion that goes with this event and I think it was designed to be that way. There is this overbearing horror that lingers over it, a strange inexplicable malevolent thing that the human mind wants to attach to something to put a name to it and have a target to attack. We are directed to this nebulous thing called terrorism which is not satisfying to the soul so that there is a unquenchable longing to strike and strike again until you are satisfied but it never comes. (talking about stupid useless wars)
I do not intend to be confrontational but I have to wonder what is the motivation behind trying to defend the explanation we are given by the controlled media and something that was never criminally investigated.
I have to admit I was taken in by listening to talk radio and having to listen to whatever was available on regular broadcast radio to the likes of Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. I was convinced that Muslims were our enemy, even though I already knew it was a false flag event perpetrated by elements of the MUSAD and the CIA.
Now, I posted a video link showing what was probably taken from the Empire State Building showing a plane coming down from what looks like the the area of Bayonne Bridge. Now what I would like to see is someone just draw a picture, you know with some selected landmarks and some line to demonstrate a flight path of that plane and have it reconciled with the other videos showing the plane flying straight into the building from what looks like a direction closer to the Staten Island end of the Verrazano Bridge. Then tell me how easy that is to do.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


you state that " the flight was used as a training scenario, but you did not provide proof??

your link simply states that "it should not of been able to fly"

please provide proof of it being used as a training exercise, and no one was able to complete it???



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Well, you know what they say, if you can't dazzle them with brillance, then baffle them with bull#$it!!


LOL LOL



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I believe it was a missile, not an airplane.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by XPLodER
i think this is important
1. 747 boiengs have hyrolic acuated flight serfaces that are controlled by a computer processor
2.this processor smooths out piolet imput to the wings and tail flaps
3. you cannot turn on a dime pull up in a few feet or roll in a short space of time
4.stresses on the airframe are limited by processor to stay under a predescribed limit

conclusion
i doubt weather any piolet can recreate these manovers without by passing this system
the hijackers would not have been able to bypass this processor
the plane is capable of this manuver but only with previous modifycations
the most likely reason these planes hit was some form of lazer guiding system tapped directly into the processor making litterly thousands of course corrections a second

human piolets flighing a normal 747 cannot carry out these sudden sharp corrections and the computer processor in control will not allow the output changes required to garenty a hit as this was nessacery to the whole callaspe plan

xp


[edit on 14-8-2010 by XPLodER]


What you are describing in the first part of your post is a fully "fly-by-wire" system, which the 747 does not have. By the way, why are you even talking about the 747? That was not what the OP was about. The aircraft in question was the 757/767 type. I happen to have FAA type ratings for both the 747 and 757/767. The 757/767 does have a fully autonomous system with software that limits g-forces which i in your post.s what I think you were trying to get at in your post. The 747 does not have that software.


Was listening to an old episode of Art Bell the other day, he had the world's most decorated pilot (most awards, medals, experience, etc.) on. This guy seemed adamant that the couple of training hours flying light aircraft in Florida (as cited by the OS) would not have been sufficient by any means for the hijackers to pull of that move. They would have required, according to the pilot whose name escapes me at the moment, around a years training with specifically the 757 model.

Heres a quote from (the admittedly unreliable) wikipedia:


The 757 is used on heavy domestic routes as well as transatlantic routes between North America and Europe.[11] The majority of 757s are in service with U.S. carriers (64% of aircraft in service at July 2007), Delta Air Lines and American Airlines being the first and second largest customers of the type, respectively. Prior to July 2007, American Airlines was the largest operator, operating a total of 141 757s. American Airlines has retired their 757 fleet that was inherited via American's buyout of TWA, due to the fact that they use Pratt & Whitney engines rather than Rolls-Royce like most of American's 757s. United Airlines, Continental Airlines, US Airways, America West Airlines (now a part of the US Airways Group), and Northwest Airlines (now a part of Delta Air Lines) also operate large 757 fleets. The 757 is the only type of aircraft currently used by all five U.S. "legacy" airlines. The 757 is also used by holiday/charter airlines, mainly in North America and Europe.


i.e. it is not used in the middle east, where the 747 is widely used. Where would they have received their training then?

edit: NB: question not directed at you, but a general audience..
edit on 25-11-2010 by arollingstone because: inaccuracy



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   


The 757/767 does have a fully autonomous system with software that limits g-forces which i in your post.s what I think you were trying to get at in your post. The 747 does not have that software.


Simly not true, there's no such limitations on any Boeing airplane in manual flight.




i.e. it is not used in the middle east, where the 747 is widely used. Where would they have received their training then?


Probably in Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Pakistan. There are a lot of B757/767 simulators there.

The 767/757 share a common rating, if you are rated on one you can also fly the other with just a difference course on the other plane.

So, they basicly use the same simulator for the 757/767.

I guess they used the planes they did because they had a better chance to hijack B757/67 than 747, and easier access to a 767/57 simulator.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by arollingstone
 


You drew an incorrect conclusion, when you used Wiki (as you said....maybe not the most reliable....I'd say it is reliable, but perhaps incomplete, in some cases, such as this instance).

Your comment was that the Boeing 757/767 was "not used in the Middle East". Demonstrably false. (Wiki seems to have, in their article on the airplanes, a distinct North America bias).

Ever hear of the Egypt Air 990 crash?? A Boeing 767. I also looked up Saudi Arabian Airlines....they operate B-757s. An Ethiopian B-767 was hijacked some years ago, made big news when it ran out of fuel, and ditched into the ocean surf, just offshore....

Here's a link to a website that has the entire world's fleet information. I have it set to go straight to the "Browse By Country" section, you can navigate around, and search by airline, too:

www.airfleets.net...

Here's their homepage, if you prefer to start there, instead: www.airfleets.net...

As you will note, it is current...but they also have historical data, too, so one can search back to around the 200-2001 time-frame.

Lastly, I may have missed it before. You quoted ATS member 4nicsphd (who, from chatting with him, I KNOW is a pilot too) about the B-757/767 and the flight computer input that interferes with pilots manipulation of the controls.

As Ivar_K correctly pointed out, this is a mistake. You see, I too am type rated on, and have thousands of hours in the B-757/767, so I know their systems very well. There are no computer inputs that would inhibit a pilot, when flying manually (i.e., autopilot disengaged). Unlike many Airbus products, which DO have a computer-interface of some sort, since they are strictly "FBW" (fly-by-wire).

Only Airbus I have ever personally flown is the, much older, A-300-B4 model....built before the A-320 series, and beyond. A-300s have a conventional (like Boeing) mechanical/hydraulic assist flight control system....



edit on 25 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Wow, this is an awesome thread.

I read the whole thing. It is clear who commands the thread vs. those who wish it to be silenced.

I highly encourage all reading this post to spend a bit of time to read the thread and click through the evidence presented.

Star and Flag.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by HassleHoff2010
Wow, this is an awesome thread.

I read the whole thing. It is clear who commands the thread vs. those who wish it to be silenced.

I highly encourage all reading this post to spend a bit of time to read the thread and click through the evidence presented.

Star and Flag.


Indeed, I agree... and look at the last few pages with nothing but babbling, topic derailment and everything but discussion of the evidence Tiffany presented that commanded what, almost 90's pages of spanking? This is perhaps one of the best threads thats ever been on ATS that contains a wealth of irrefutable evidence and facts that conclusively proves for all intents and purposes, the OS/OCT about real 767-200 airliners hitting the wtc, is nothing more than pure fantasy and the REAL CONSPIRACY THEORY. But the bigger and real tragedy in this thread is actually the incredibly unfair censorship thats attempted to silence real evidence and intelligent discourse that in the end ironically "shut down" everyone except those who couldn't refute and disprove the evidence with anything other than attacks, opinions, diversions and character assassinations.



edit on 26-11-2010 by elnine because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by HassleHoff2010
Wow, this is an awesome thread.

I read the whole thing. It is clear who commands the thread vs. those who wish it to be silenced.

I highly encourage all reading this post to spend a bit of time to read the thread and click through the evidence presented.

Star and Flag.


Wow. Yet another "Capt" Bob Balsamo sock that has been banned. When will he realize that the snake-oil he has been trying to peddle here isn't selling.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by HassleHoff2010
 


Hi Tiffany, you back under another name?, if you believe that Tiff has commanded the topic, fair play to you but you are wrong, what she had done was spam the board with incoherent ramblings throughout, if you look at the posts by Weed and all you will see where she went wrong and was too stubborn, or stuck in her beliefs not to admit where she was wrong,

Even when she was shown to be wrong in her arguments by qualified pilots who have flown this type of aircraft and have experience in these matters.

Wee Mad



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Has anybody thought to question the dead ones relatives , they had to have gotten death certficates. I know some of the wives got phone calls from there husbands that were on the plane that crashed ,because they were on a documentary that I watched.the husbands were gonna attack the hijackers so the plane would crash. also wouldnt there be documentation of peoples flight reservations, someone had to know who was on what plane.People need to think about this .or all of the people who were on these planes not really dead? are they in on it .How about all the people on the ground, the reporters , the firefighters, the police, are all these people liers. Why do people keep this conspirice theory raging on.? Why wouldnt the planes explode ,they explode when they crash dont they. They make a-lot of noise when they crash, they go boom!!!. they have gas on the planes. There is a book at the library ,a big book of all of the victims of 9/11 , with there pictures. all of the victims. wouldnt you know it if one of your loved ones was on one of the planes. wouldnt you have attended their funeral.I would like to talk to the person who started this dern 9/11 conspiricie. I would slap him up side his head a few times..




top topics



 
141
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join