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.

 

pentagon pilot

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
how could a noob pilot be capable of doing the maneuvers that the terrorist that piloted the plane against the pentagon did , to fly so low to the ground and do that turn


ive done this video , and would like to hear opinions



*video link edit

[edit on 29-10-2007 by dbates]



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   
He may not have been a great pilot, but he wasn't a noob. he was enlisted because of his extensive piloting background. He had more hours than people more advanced than him. And he had several pilots lisc which aren't just given out to anyone, they require being able to pass flight tests to determine that one is capable, and that included a commercial lisc. I think calling him a noob, is being very dishonest. And I don't blame that on you, but I blame it on many of these conspiracy sites that use such misleading language. That is simply bad journalism. Journalism should be presenting the facts, not trying to con people into a pre-determined opinion.

So the theory is basically based on selective adjectives and opinion on what is or isn't difficult.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Originally posted by snoopy


He may not have been a great pilot, but he wasn't a noob.


Thanks for the post snoopy.

On the contrary, whoever flew this profile was a great pilot not only because it was a precision turn at over 500 mph but because there is a consistent and even bank used in the descent from 7000 ft. which was very precisely flown arriving at the Pentagons height at the exact precise second of arriving just short of the Pentagon wall itself. According the FDR (Flight Data Recorder) there was not one single bank correction, in other words the bank or angle of turn was so precise that not once did Hani require the reversal of the controls to correct the bank. With my 19,000 hours I am sure I couldn’t have achieved this precision.

Here is a quote from the New York Times:


[Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all." [New York Times]


www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Also, in a true feat of airmanship that he allegedly accomplished while descending precisely from 7000 foot altitude, not once did he level off or pull back on the yoke to slow his descent. It was a precise descent rivaling any tactical bombing or strafing maneuver required for combat flying.


he was enlisted because of his extensive piloting background. He had more hours than people more advanced than him.


This statement is not true. According to his logbooks he had less than 600 hours. This amount of time is short by thousands of hours required to qualify as a co-pilot on an airline. 'Extensive' piloting experience usually starts at about 2000 to 3000 hours. If you have information that is contrary to this please enlighten me.


And he had several pilots lisc which aren't just given out to anyone


Please list the ‘several pilots licenses’ and also please list the license that isn’t given out ‘to just anyone’.

And further, please list the pilots license that is given out 'to just anyone.' That would be a hoot!


they require being able to pass flight tests to determine that one is capable, and that included a commercial lisc.


Passing a commercial pilots license test would not enable one to perform a maneuver such as that depicted here. Even passing the test required for the Airline Transport Pilot’s license which requires considerably more time than Hani allegedly had would not enable one to perform this kind of maneuver with this kind of precision.


I think calling him a noob, is being very dishonest. And I don't blame that on you, but I blame it on many of these conspiracy sites that use such misleading language. That is simply bad journalism. Journalism should be presenting the facts, not trying to con people into a pre-determined opinion.

So the theory is basically based on selective adjectives and opinion on what is or isn't difficult.


I am not sure what theory you are referring to but I would be happy to respond if you would clarify your statement. Also, please answer the questions above.

Thanks for your post and your input. It is greatly appreciated.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
No, there was nothing precision or amazing about his turn. I understand why you want to believe it so. But you also claimed that hitting the WTC would have been impossible as well, and many people who never flew before have been able to do this in simulators on the first try.

He got both is private pilots lisc. John, doesn't that require testing? Are you going to suggest that anyone who simply asks for a private pilots lisc will be given one?

Hani also got a commercial Pilot's lisc. Are you going to suggest that a commercial lisc is simply given out to anyone without any kind of testing or training?

he also had over 600 hours of flying time. More than many people getting a lisc. And a big reason he wasn't called a good pilot was his lack of desire to learn landing. A skill not needed to fly a plane into the biggest target in a city.

There was nothing impossible about what was done that day. Except when you start getting into claims of holograms and fly overs and things of that nature which simply don't add up and aren't backed up by any substantial evidence.




posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Originally posted by snoopy




he also had over 600 hours of flying time. More than many people getting a lisc. And a big reason he wasn't called a good pilot was his lack of desire to learn landing. A skill not needed to fly a plane into the biggest target in a city.



I stand corrected Snoopy. Having 600 hours of flight time without learning how to land is quite an accomplishment!



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


So is it your belief that he acquired his private pilot license, complex rating, multiengine rating, and commercial license without ever having to solo any aircraft and land it by himself?



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Originally posted by Boone 870



So is it your belief that he acquired his private pilot license, complex rating, multiengine rating, and commercial license without ever having to solo any aircraft and land it by himself?



Thanks for the post Boone 870. I was commenting on snoopy's post. Nobodywith any kind of license crashed into the Pentagon. There was no crash.

By the by. Its been several weeks since I asked you your Scenic Airlines seniority number (I posted my I.D. card) and your last POI. I am not questioning your alleged experience I am just asking a couple of simple questions related to your alleged experience as an airline pilot. Although you claim you are retired those are questions, the answers to which you would instantly know.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


I think you're confusing me with someone else.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I'm sure these guys spent alot of time using a flight simulator. The mission could have been accomplished by a person who had never flown a real plane.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   
"I'm sure these guys spent alot of time using a flight simulator."
if you are talking about the pilot of the a310 on the video , he and his crew had to train thousand of hours on a simulator , and these maneuvers was done from one of the most skilled pilots from my country
and i have been on forums were comercial pilots join , and say that its impossible for someone that has few fligth hours or has trained on a simulator to fly even lower that this pilot flew , like hanjir did

[edit on 29-10-2007 by dracodie]



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dracodie
 


I could nail 'em I bet, I'll try when I get home on FlyIIk. Okay then, either the whole thing is part of a cover-up or they were guided "by the hand of Allah".



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Originally posted by earthman4




I'm sure these guys spent alot of time using a flight simulator.



Boeing 757/767 simulators are not found at every airport. And you don't just walk in a 'buy' a 'lot of time' in a Boeing 757/767 simulator.

Which airlines' Boeing 757/767 simulator to you think they practiced in? El Al's?


The mission could have been accomplished by a person who had never flown a real plane.


Absolutely, positively NOT.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
You'd be suprised what you could learn from a flight simulator. I had several 100 hrs. of flight time in a Boeing 707 simulator. When I was presented the opportunity to fly the plane for real I was amazed at how simple it was to actually fly the plane through the sky. I made some sharp banks, and dives with little difficulity. Although the pilots didn't let me barn-storm the town I did it hundreds of times in the flight sim. You're not really flying unless the ground is directly to your left.


B1-B Lancer through the Grand Canyon at 600 MPH. Not a problem. My favorite scenario. Flying through cities was too easy. I'm not talking about a Microsoft flight sim. I mean the real thing that military pilots train on with over 10 feet of full hydrolic motion. You walk in to the simulator, raise the platform that connects you to the walkway, and do your thing.

In my experience landing, navitation, and in-flight refueling are the most difficult part. Any fool with some practice time in a simulator and some basic aviation knowledge can fly a real plane on a clear day. I did. I have no doubt that someone like me could fly a plane into a building as big as the Pentagon. You'd have to work pretty hard at missing it.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Originally posted by dbates




Any fool with some practice time in a simulator and some basic aviation knowledge can fly a real plane on a clear day. I did.



Thanks for the post dbates. Although I would not characterize you as a fool as you have done I would say that flying through the Grand Canyon is not the same as hitting a 208 foot wide target at 500 mph.

I am currently working on a project to select 2 or 3 pilots who will represent the alleged abilities of the 911 p[ilots.

There is a Boeing 757/7657 simulator here in Las Vegas which I propose to rent for a 4 hours session.

Each of the pilots will be asked to fly the exact profile of the planes who allegedly hit the North tower, the South Tower and the Pentagon.

Each pilot will be given only one chance to fly each profile.

The simulator flight will be professionally video-taped and the simulator records copied. Other than myself there will 2 'official' witnesses' that will certify to the flights and the results.

I expect this experiment to put an end to 'how easy' it is to hit a building at 500 mph.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
www.salon.com...


Confusion aside, I can tackle a few of the more commonly heard myths that pertain to the airplanes and their pilots, point by point.

The terrorist pilots lacked the skill and training to fly jetliners into their targets.

This is an extremely popular topic with respect to American 77. Skyjacker Hani Hanjour, a notoriously untalented flier who never piloted anything larger than a four-seater, seemed to pull off a remarkable series of aerobatic maneuvers before slamming into the Pentagon. The pilots of American 11 and United 175 also had spotty records. They should have had great difficulty navigating to New York City, and even greater difficulty hitting the twin towers squarely. To bolster their belief that the 19 skyjackers were Oswaldian pawns, the conspiracy-mongers invoke impressive-sounding jargon and fluffery about high-tech cockpits, occasionally trundling out testimony from pilots.

Reality: As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the #ty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.

It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.


They didn't need to be professionals to learn how to take off and land, just hijack and crash.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I would not characterize you as a fool as you have done

I know, after I posted that I thought, "Did I just call myself a fool?"


I look foward to seeing the results of your test. I do have to ask however how fair it would be to only let them have one chance to hit the building. No doubt the person flying the plane in to the Pentagon flew the same path several 100 times in a simulator. It doesn't seem fair to only give people one chance to hit the target. To be fair it took us several tries to fly some of the difficult scenarios we made up in the simulators. You know, "Whoops, I needed to start descending a little sooner" or "I should slow down for that turn". I must have ran into the back of a KC-10 at least 50 times before I got the in-flight refueling down well enough to take on fuel.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 



The things that really got my attention were the amount of descent rate that you had to have at the end of the flight, of Flight 77, that would have made it practically impossible to hit the light poles. [Editor's note: Destruction of the light poles near the Pentagon by Flight 77 was stated in the 9/11 Commission Report.] Essentially it would have been too high at that point to the point of impact where the main body of the airplane was hitting between the first and second floor of the Pentagon. ... Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former combat fighter pilot. Aerospace engineer. Currently Captain at a major airline.



The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ... Commander Ted Muga, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired Naval aviator (Grumman E-1 and E-2). Retired Pan-Am commercial airline pilot (Boeing 707 and 727).



At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired fighter pilot. Former Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School (Topgun). 20-year Navy career.



"The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."… Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial pilot.


patriotsquestion911.com...

I guess these guys dont know what they are talking about.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
No doubt the person flying the plane in to the Pentagon flew the same path several 100 times in a simulator.


Prove it.

You made that up.

Even if he had the topography REQUIRES there to be a visible descent angle from a 757 traveling over 500 mph and sure enough the FDR even reports one.








But unfortunately for the official story this aeronautic requirement can not be reconciled with the physical damage or the security video which depicts the "object" perfectly level:



With all the obstacles and due to the topography this would have been impossible for a military drone to pull off let alone an inexperienced terrorist pilot.

Since we know the plane was on the north side of the citgo anyway it is clear that the physical damage was simulated and the security video manipulated.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Prove it.

You made that up.

You mean you know exactly how many times he practiced this flight? I'd like to see your log of his simulator time. As far as proof, my proof is the hole in the side of the Pentagon. You say it was impossible, yet it happened. Clearly my story is superior since it reflects facts in the real world instead of the science fiction stories that some here like to make up as if they were truth.

You claim there were bombs faking it. Where's your proof? You don't have it. It's just an idea in your head.



this would have been impossible for a military drone to pull off let alone an inexperienced terrorist pilot.

And yet despite your doubt, it did happen. Reality doesn't require your belief in it's existance for it to be true.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by dbates]



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 


I love it when people argue with John Lear about piloting an aircraft. It's tantamount to self-immolation. I'm not saying he's never wrong, but his point of view has decades of experience backing it up.

Also, I would think that regardless of how many hours one has in a simulator, nothing beats real world experience.

Edit: Oh and by the way, I still don't see a plane in that video!


Peace



[edit on 29-10-2007 by Dr Love]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join