Personal Theory on The Twin Towers Plane Pilots

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamatt
This way the 'hijacked' planes can be put on the ground somewhere, the replacement planes sent up with these remote pilots not knowing what was going on. They thought they were part of the war games. This is how the expert pilots and amazing piloting was possible. Who else would have the skills to hit these buildings so accurately, and actually agree to do it? After the fact, these pilots disappear into whatever black hole the plane passengers were disappeared into. (If there were any) Or just taken out and shot. Whatever.... what is 2 more deaths to those people? Any way - they would need to be silenced, wouldn't they?

So, great theory, or brain fart? lol



An entertaining theory, but like every other conspiracy theory, you need to make sure your audience remains ignorant of any additional information this theory touches upon because as a rule, conspiracy theories are derived not upon the facts, but upon the misunderstanding of them. Case in point- When we learn that flight attendant Robert Fangman made a call from flight 175 (the plane that hit the south tower) and reported the plane had been hijacked, the pilots were dead, and a stewardess was stabbed, your theory becomes unlikely. When we later learn that flight 175 never turned its transponder off so air traffic controllers were able to track the plane all the way from takeoff to its arrival in NYC, your theory becomes untenable. So, for you to promote your theory it behooves you to make sure that noone else knows about these details..

Whether or not your audience wishes to believe in conspiracy theories or whether they wich to promote the truth is largely irrelevent in your plea, here. It is bad form to be promoting conspiracy theories simply for the sake of promoting conspiracy theories, as it needlessly "poisons the well" with bad information andd draws the discussion away from legitimate topics and into pointless bickering. I really don't need to point out how the conspiracy theorists spend more energy argiung among themselves over what the REAL conspiracy is (I.E. nukes in the basement, hologram planes, lasers from outer space, fake buildings, or what have you) than they do with their critics, do I?
edit on 11-9-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
Can't most planes already fly themselves?


Not without pilot input.

Also the autopilot have limited control authority.




Fly by wire and all that.


None of the planes used 9/11 were fly by wire, the only fly by wire Boeing airplanes at that time was the B777.




At the point an aircraft is hijacked from the ground, everyone on board is just along for the ride.


Impossible since safety critical control systems are designed to be tamperproof en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen

Not without pilot input.

Also the autopilot have limited control authority.


Pilot input consists of programming the appropriate data into the flight computer right? From that point the plane can essentially fly itself from take off to landing. Can anyone rule out the possibility of this input being altered? If I can log in to a computer on the other side of the planet and do pretty much anything I like, well, where's the difference? It's just a question of access. Is it possible?




None of the planes used 9/11 were fly by wire, the only fly by wire Boeing airplanes at that time was the B777.


But such systems were about. I know the 757/767 currently has fly by wire systems but couldn't tell you when these were introduced to the models. Perhaps you can enlighten us on this?




Impossible since safety critical control systems are designed to be tamperproof en.wikipedia.org...


There is no such thing as tamper-proof.
edit on 11-9-2012 by quackers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
As far as remote pilot tech, it has existed ever since they invented RC. Sure they got it and could have installed it prior to take off and faked all the crew and passengers and phone calls, etc. They yes, could have done that.

Here is one problem I am having with that. Real professional pilots would have been used to control the aircraft remotely, right? And they would have carefully guided their respective planes into their designated targets. That being the case, what about the reports that the planes were flown beyond their envelope of capabilities, Some Theorist Experts even go so far to claim that the planes could not have withstood the tremendous pressures exerted on them by the radical maneuvers they performed, i.e., that the planes should have broken up or crashed before reaching their final destination?

Wouldn't professional pilots have been sure to keep their movements carefully controlled so as to avoid any mishap? Then explain the air traffic controller testimony, radar tracks and black box record (especially the controllers).

Heres another. Like the lack of demolition materials found after in the wreckage of the buildings, there was never any claim that any remote control equipment was found either. Not_One_Bit.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by quackersPilot input consists of programming the appropriate data into the flight computer right?


A little bit more than that.

One still have to take off manually, in fact the autopilot won't connect fully at altitudes lower than 500 ft.

In my airline we have to handfly to 1000ft AGL before connecting autopilot.

Then reconfigure flaps, gear, trim and so on for climb and cruise. No airplane in service today can fly itself.




If I can log in to a computer on the other side of the planet and do pretty much anything I like, well, where's the difference? It's just a question of access. Is it possible?


No two way communication between any passenger planes flight control system and ground is possible.




But such systems were about. I know the 757/767 currently has fly by wire systems but couldn't tell you when these were introduced to the models. Perhaps you can enlighten us on this?


B757/767 do no have, and have never had fly by wire flight controls.




There is no such thing as tamper-proof.


Yes there is, in fact it is a requirement for certification.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
You are all disrespecting the dead.

I myself do believe that there is a mass conspiracy/cover up done by the United States government and possibly other nations, but for some of you say that there were no passengers on the planes is just disgusting.

Where is your proof that the planes that hit the towers and crashed in PA were drones?

You have none. It is all just a ridiculous speculation.

My friends father is on the FDNY. He was there. He saw flight 175 hit. It wasn't black. It wasn't a drone. It was a passenger aircraft, just like what all the television and personal cameras captured that day.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Shamatt
This way the 'hijacked' planes can be put on the ground somewhere, the replacement planes sent up with these remote pilots not knowing what was going on. They thought they were part of the war games. This is how the expert pilots and amazing piloting was possible. Who else would have the skills to hit these buildings so accurately, and actually agree to do it? After the fact, these pilots disappear into whatever black hole the plane passengers were disappeared into. (If there were any) Or just taken out and shot. Whatever.... what is 2 more deaths to those people? Any way - they would need to be silenced, wouldn't they?

So, great theory, or brain fart? lol




Whether or not your audience wishes to believe in conspiracy theories or whether they wich to promote the truth is largely irrelevent in your plea, here. It is bad form to be promoting conspiracy theories simply for the sake of promoting conspiracy theories, as it needlessly "poisons the well" with bad information andd draws the discussion away from legitimate topics and into pointless bickering. I really don't need to point out how the conspiracy theorists spend more energy argiung among themselves over what the REAL conspiracy is (I.E. nukes in the basement, hologram planes, lasers from outer space, fake buildings, or what have you) than they do with their critics, do I?
edit on 11-9-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)


Yes Dave, and trying to make the point that anyone who does not buy into the OS is not wishing to promote truth, is also "bad form" and, it "poisons the well"
Equally bad form is attempting to margenalize all "truthers" into the nukes/lazers from space/hologram camp. It's simply an attempt to discredit the entire movement as looney. It's a childish debate tactic that most can see it for what it is...bad form and irrelevant.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen
[A little bit more than that.

One still have to take off manually, in fact the autopilot won't connect fully at altitudes lower than 500 ft.
In my airline we have to handfly to 1000ft AGL before connecting autopilot.
Then reconfigure flaps, gear, trim and so on for climb and cruise. No airplane in service today can fly itself.


Ok, now you say the autopilot wont connect at low altitude, fair enough. But.. can it be, or can it be modified to do so? I've seen video footage of commercial sized aircraft being flown remotely into concrete walls so the possability that one can be flown isn't really debatable, what is is if it can be done so through electronics and software already fitted to commercial airliners.




No two way communication between any passenger planes flight control system and ground is possible.


Ok, why not? Forgive me, I'm not a pilot and have little knowledge of flight control systems. Can you categorically say that such communication is impossible? Be clear, I said impossible! If any of these systems are computerized, and there is the possibility of ground to air communication with these systems, then its possible for them to be tampered with. I doubt many pilots have seen the source code let alone the hardware components, so unless one is an electronics and software engineer and reduced one of these systems to its basics components, then how do they know what it is capable of doing? Many people don't know their mobile can listen in on them even when its switched off so....




B757/767 do no have, and have never had fly by wire flight controls.


Not what wiki says;


[34] The fly-by-wire system, shared with the 767, reduces weight and provides for the independent operation of individual spoilers.
wikipedia




Yes there is, in fact it is a requirement for certification.


I'll repeat myself for the sake of clarity. There is no such thing as tamper-proof.

I'm sure GoDaddy though they were impenetrable. Wrong.

I'm sure Iran though the systems on their nuclear reactors were impenetrable. Wrong. (Uh, Israel again?)
edit on 11-9-2012 by quackers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 



Like i said the B767/757 is NOT fly by wire.

You are quoting a wiki text about the SPOILER mechanism that has electrical signals to the hydraulical actuators instead of cables.

The rest of the flight control system is hydromechanical conventonal operated.

The answer to the rest of your post is NO it is not possible, and yes i'm an airline captain rated on fly by wire and conventional airliners.

As it's clear to me that you have no knowledge whatsoever about aviation, airplane systems and requirements. You are welcome to educate yourself on www.pprune.org... where you'll find thousands of professional pilots, system engineers and people from all areas of aviation.


Ivar Karlsen over and out!



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamatt
It might be best if this thread is avoided by those who don't agree with us mad conspiracy nutters! There are plenty of other threads where we can argue about if it was or was not an inside job. If you would like to play along, lets assume it was.

So, I was thinking about who would fly those planes into those buildings. Well, no one would volunteer for a job like that. So perhaps they were flown by remote control? OK, that makes more sense. But who would do that? Who, with those skills and abilities would follow an order like that? To crash a plane into a civilian building...... I can't see any skilled Air force officer agreeing to do this.

Then I remembered that there were all those war games being conducted at the time. Where various government agencies were actually simulating how they would respond to - amongst other things - airplanes being used as missiles to attack buildings. And it dawned on me..... An officer who was part of those war games, who was an ace pilot, who was told to go to the 'simulator' and 'simulate' crashing an aircraft into the twin towers, would do exactly as ordered - not knowing that the 'simulator' was actually connected via remote control to an actual airplane.

This way the 'hijacked' planes can be put on the ground somewhere, the replacement planes sent up with these remote pilots not knowing what was going on. They thought they were part of the war games. This is how the expert pilots and amazing piloting was possible. Who else would have the skills to hit these buildings so accurately, and actually agree to do it? After the fact, these pilots disappear into whatever black hole the plane passengers were disappeared into. (If there were any) Or just taken out and shot. Whatever.... what is 2 more deaths to those people? Any way - they would need to be silenced, wouldn't they?

So, great theory, or brain fart? lol



You're making it way too complicated. To fly an aircraft into a building doesn't take either a pilot or someone on the ground. You just program the inertial navigation system to fly the horizontal profile and plug in the desired v-nav (vertical navigation) profile. Or you just plug in the guidance unit from a Diehl defense laser guided Sidewinder (AIM-9) and have someone shine a laser at the target spot.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by F4guy
 


Would a laser work on the towers? I feel like the reflection off the metal/glass would be difficult to compensate for. It definitely couldn't be a handheld laser. And anyway, none of this really explains the passengers, unless the theory is that the planes were programmed to fly with passengers on-board.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
This programme on tv had a similar theory....
only thing was this show 'lone gunmen' was aired on 3/11 march 2001 , 6 months before 9/11 september 2001.

What are your thoughts?? all a big co-incidence??
hmmmmmmm i wonder!!



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamatt

So, I was thinking about who would fly those planes into those buildings. Well, no one would volunteer for a job like that. Who else would have the skills to hit these buildings so accurately, and actually agree to do it?



I usually do not participate in the 9/11 threads because I truly do feel that terrorists did attack our country. However, I have to disagree with you on that sentence because there are countless of incidents where these terrorists attach themselves with bombs and calmly walk into a crowded place, road, etc and blow themselves up.That is what they do. They sacrifice themselves for their "cause".

And as someone pointed out, Japanase Kamikaze. There's always brainwashed people willing to die for their beliefs.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 



And who had only experience flying a single engine plane, according to the owner of the flight school that trained some of the hijackers


What fligfht school was that...?

Some of the hijackers received training in jet simulators prior to 9/11

Hani Hanjour for one was trained in a 737 simulator (close enought to a 757) at Jet Tech in Mesa Az during
Jan/Feb 2001

His instructor signed off for him as having passed "Steep turns", nothing was noted about taxiing or landing

By the way many of the Japanese Kamikazes had even less training - since on a one way ride were not
trained in how to land........



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 


Perhaps you should modify the wiki text then so it is more accurate. It says fly by wire. I understand that you are a pilot, but I take it you are not an electronics or software engineer, therefore you know what you are told, or what you have read, nothing more. You cannot assess the capabilities beyond your own limited knowledge. So untill someone proves otherwise, its plausible. As for your insistence that certification or standards really mean anything, well, you've been proven wrong on more occasions than I care to mention, and not just in aviation. So, where does that leave us? Can a plane fly itself? Yes. Can someone from the ground fly a plane remotely? Yes. If a computer can fly a plane then someone in control of that computer can fly that plane. I dont think, even though you're a pilot, you'd know one way or the other.

But indulge us why don't you. Lets say your up there cruising along sipping on your weak tasteless airline coffee and the plane starts doing what it wants. If as you say, these planes had no fly by wire systems, but mashing buttons and flicking switches is getting you nowhere, how do you regain control over the aircraft? How do you definitively pull the plug and do it manually? Is that even possible?If a computer is telling the hydraulics what to do and you have no control over the computer, what then? If a computer is telling the hydraulics to do one thing and your feet are telling it to do something else who wins, the computer or your foot?
edit on 11-9-2012 by quackers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

So, I was thinking about who would fly those planes into those buildings. Well, no one would volunteer for a job like that. So perhaps they were flown by remote control? OK, that makes more sense. But who would do that? Who, with those skills and abilities would follow an order like that? To crash a plane into a civilian building...... I can't see any skilled Air force officer agreeing to do this
reply to post by Shamatt
 


Ever hear of a KAMIKAZE....?

They were Japanese pilots from Army/Navy who dived their planes into American ships

Off Okinawa hit 300 ships and sunk 30

en.wikipedia.org...

Right off your "theory" is disproven

As for crashing into civilian targets we are dealing with fanatics who believe that by killing their enemies
will somehow achieve paradise and enjoy 72 virgins forever

These fanatics will strap a bomb to themselves and walk into a wedding party to blow themself up


At the Radisson SAS Hotel (now known as the 'Landmark Hotel'), two suicide bombers (a husband and wife team—Ali Hussein Ali al-Shamari and Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi)—entered the Philadelphia Ballroom, where Ashraf Akhras and his bride, Nadia Al-Alami, were celebrating their wedding with around 900 Jordanian and Palestinian guests. Sajida al-Rishawi was unable to detonate her belt. Her husband Ali al-Shamari, apparently admonished her and told her to get out of the room. As she was leaving, the lights went out in the ballroom, Ali jumped onto a dining-room table and detonated himself. Amongst the 38 people killed in the explosion were the fathers of the bride and groom. In addition, the explosion destroyed the ballroom, blew out the large windows bordering the street, and knocked down ceiling panels. The hotel lobby was also affected: ceiling panels and light fixtures collapsed, furniture was destroyed, and the hotel's glass doors were shattered. Cleanup and rebuilding commenced shortly afterwards.


en.wikipedia.org...

Dont need remote control - just deluded fanatics driven by hate.........





You're omitting a lot of important information from your comparison of Japanese pilots flying lightweight prop planes traveling much slower than the hugely different commercial air liner of modern day.

It's like saying a Cadillac Escalade can corner as well as a Ferrari.

Sorry to be the nay sayer to your idea.






And besides, why would you need to remote control the plane when they could just put the 'terrorists' in the plane, guarantee them they would survive, then just have the plane auto-pilot into the buildings. I'd imagine programming the correct route via auto pilot would be far more plausible than some lame brain, hardly trained morons flying commercial planes like the most seasoned commercial pilot on 4 doses of adderol.

I find it baffling that people don't choke on the information, instead they swallow whole - example being the skills of the pilots. If guys like that with their amount of training can do what they did, then I should easily be able to sky dive without a parachute because I believe I can fly too.
edit on 11-9-2012 by Soloro because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
large jets are trackable on radar


those fights were flown by men with martyrdom on their minds

in flight school, they asked the instructors how to turn the transponders off, and ignore landing lessons.

why is this so hard to accept ?

do you deny the car bombings that happen all the time ?

are they fake ?



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


Well, it's not as if the so called pilot was just at another day at the office, err simulator. No, he was participating in a drill so he would be trying his best. But anything is possible, that much is for sure so your explanation will always be an option for this theory.


Originally posted by dadfortruth1
I was looking into purcashing a drone for aerial photography. These things implement a gps way point system, very accurate.

So my thinking is they could have used a similar system, with no pilots or pilots who had no control of the plane.


Aerial photography, or as I like to call it...spying
edit on 11-9-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
reply to post by Shamatt
 


I have my own theories about the pilots that day but as we're not here discussing whether it was an inside job or not, I took note of your first statement that pretty much sets up the rest of your theories.




So, I was thinking about who would fly those planes into those buildings. Well, no one would volunteer for a job like that.


Aren't "terrorists" or rebels or whatever name they're given, known for their suicide bombs? If they would strap bombs to their bodies to blow buildings up, I would think a plane being substituted for a bomb wouldn't be that different in their mind.


I knew some people would be confused by the OPs post. When he means no one would fly the planes into the buildings he means no one who is apart of the USA Gov't or military and that's because this is supposed to be an inside job. The OP does make this pretty clear but I knew this sentence would allow people to argue the theory and saying it's disprove because of these sentences can be taken out of context or just misunderstood,



So, I was thinking about who would fly those planes into those buildings. Well, no one would volunteer for a job like that.


Who isn't fully aware of suicide bombers or the Japanese kamikaze pilots?


Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by quackers
 



So some 19yo Israeli.....

Your understanding of avionics and technology not withstanding - why an Israeli? If its so simple why not an Iraqi? Iranian? Mexican? Icelander? Scot? Fin? Korean? etc., etc.?


A Korean could definitely do it. Those guys are video game/computer Gods.
edit on 11-9-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackmetalmist

Originally posted by Shamatt

So, I was thinking about who would fly those planes into those buildings. Well, no one would volunteer for a job like that. Who else would have the skills to hit these buildings so accurately, and actually agree to do it?



I usually do not participate in the 9/11 threads because I truly do feel that terrorists did attack our country. However, I have to disagree with you on that sentence because there are countless of incidents where these terrorists attach themselves with bombs and calmly walk into a crowded place, road, etc and blow themselves up.That is what they do. They sacrifice themselves for their "cause".

And as someone pointed out, Japanase Kamikaze. There's always brainwashed people willing to die for their beliefs.


No they don't. They are drugged up, threatened and tortured into carrying out suicide bombings. Agents will torture their kids, their family etc. if they don't comply with carrying out suicide bombings. A good example is found here.

There are very few people willing to do such a thing so willingly.
edit on 11-9-2012 by Merlin Lawndart because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join