The end of 'Terrorist Couldn't Fly Planes That Well' threads

I had no problem on ms 98flight simulator, flying into the towers nor had any problem finding them
They were located in a unique enough geological area on the coastline with long island being a landmark that I could spot the area from a considerable distance, on approach the wtc stuck out like a sore thumb



[edit on 29-11-2007 by moonking]

There is no way that a few weeks of flight school flying ultralights and Cessnas would prepare them to fly 767s through the NY skyline at the aproach or speed that they did. This just does not make sense. This means that the highjackers must have been expertly trained other then the few weeks of ultralight lessons that we were told they received.
I do not believe that the towers were hit by missiles, lasers, plasma weapons or that holograms were involved. I do believe they were hit by planes piloted by highly trained operatives, and that the towers came down do to planted explosives. Who trained, and what factions these operatives work for we may never know.


[edit on 29-11-2007 by Osyris]

I will say again, as I have said before, the Anthrax Attacks are the answer to who was behind 9/11. Does anybody really think that OBL sent anthrax letters to Brokaw, Daschle, Leahy, and the NY Times? Think about it.

originally posted by Osyris
There is no way that a few weeks of flight school flying ultra light Cessnas would prepare them to fly 767s through the NY skyline at the aproach or speed that they did. This just does not make sense. This means that the highjackers must have been expertly trained other then the few weeks of ultra-light lessons that we were told they received.

They only had two weeks of training?
Cessnas are considered ultralights now?
Who told you all of this?

I wouldn't listen to them anymore, they are very misinformed.

This is a crock of $%#@.

Thanks for your well-informed opinion.

reply to post by Osyris

Flying a plane is not as hard as you think; Pilots let non pilots fly all the time
Finding the wtc is not that hard because of the unique location
As my father (ww2 pilot,22 years retired major air force,was a flight instructor at burn side ott at tamiami airport 70's) would say, first you learn to land, if you can’t land then there’s no since in going further
It’s the landing and taking off that take’s the real skill, something the terrorist didn’t have to deal with
Don’t you remember that it was said that it raised a flag to an instructor when one of the 9/11 hijackers was only interested in learning just to fly the jet liner and not the normal takeoff and landing procedure?
To an instructor that was very odd







[edit on 29-11-2007 by moonking]

Originally posted by moonking
Flying a plane is not as hard as you think; Pilots let non pilots fly all the time

How frequently do professional pilots of 767s let other people take the controls for them?

Originally posted by tezzajw
How frequently do professional pilots of 767s let other people take the controls for them?

First off you ducking the point (smaller aircraft)
But none the less I’ll still address you by saying we’ve all at sometime have heard the story that uncle Joe or aunt Glades got invited to the cockpit on there jet flight and got to fly the plane
How about you John Lear, are you with me on that?


[edit on 29-11-2007 by moonking]

reply to post by Boone 870


First off I ment cessnas and ultralights I'll fix that. I also said a few weeks not two weeks. If you do have info contradicting what I said please post it so I can benefit from it.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by Osyris]

This debate is useless, as autopilot simply will not, and cannot bank that hard, that close to a waypoint, in order to fly over it within 104 feet left or 104 feet right. That's rediculous. It would level off.

Could you imagine Airliners, in real life, banking steeply, less than a mile from the fix, so they can get within 104 feet of a waypoint?


LOL

Originally posted by dk3000
reply to post by Icarus Rising

 

Yes and the Pilots for Truth have long ago debunked this theory as a hijacker would NEVER have the key access codes for the GPS program. Ground/tower control immediately receives the coordinates changes etcetera so they would be aware of either a collision or impact point.

This is an argument which has long since been debunked.

Try again.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

I have got NO CLUE, as to what you're talking about.

767 is NOT GPS, and you do NOT need codes to use INS. It's aligned before start.

I can land a Boeing in ms flight simulator no probs, but trying to hit the WTC is a whole different ball game. Consider also they had to hit the correct tower and were probably aiming for the south and north faces like they did. I am not sure but the WTC isn't much wider than a runway designed to land large commerical jets. So really they do have to be pretty accurate!

You must not be very good at MSFS then.

Oh yeah, and MSFS is absolutely horrible unless you have addons (PMDG, FlyTheMaddog, Level-D... and even then the flight dynamics and feel of the aircraft are NOT realistic.)

Originally posted by moonking
First off you ducking the point (smaller aircraft)

I'm not ducking the point at all - you're changing the point. Boeing 767s allegedly crashed in to the towers, not smaller aircraft.

But none the less I’ll still address you by saying we’ve all at sometime have heard the story that uncle Joe or aunt Glades got invited to the cockpit on there jet flight and got to fly the plane

Never in my life have I heard of anyone that I know ever being allowed to touch the controls of a 767. You can't make a sweeping statement like that and expect it to be generally true, when clearly, it is false.

I have heard of some people, many years ago, being allowed to view the cockpit for a brief glimpse, but never were they allowed to touch the instrumentation or controls.

reply to post by nicepants


I'm going to agree with nicepants, here. Since Insolobrious can land a Boeing on his desktop computer, I must wonder if he's ever flown one thru a 'building' in the computer program?

Yes, there are many respected people here who have a variation of opinion regarding the events of that day...but, the point of this thread is -- could it have been done by the (alleged) terrorists? I think yes, it could have. DID it? Well, that's a subject for another debate...

Cheers...

Originally posted by tezzajw
Never in my life have I heard of anyone that I know ever being allowed to touch the controls of a 767. You can't make a sweeping statement like that and expect it to be generally true, when clearly, it is false.
I have heard of some people, many years ago, being allowed to view the cockpit for a brief glimpse, but never were they allowed to touch the instrumentation or controls.

None the less it happen quite frequently before 9/11 as I’m sure others here can testify to (Especially pilots)
To make my point perfectly clear
I don’t believe any autopilot or guidance system would have been needed to carry out this mission, I could have done it if I had control of the aircraft after take off and at a reasonable altitude giving where they took off from
I’m not a pilot although I’ve been in the R/C model airplane hobby for some years and love computer flight simulators
I bet if some Real pilots would weigh in on this that they would agree with me




[edit on 29-11-2007 by moonking]

I have heard of some people, many years ago, being allowed to view the cockpit for a brief glimpse, but never were they allowed to touch the instrumentation or controls.

Of some people?

Heh... I've been in cockpits of airliners, many, many times... Damn you 9/11 for spoiling my fun.

reply to post by tezzajw


I can think of two right off the top of my head right now. They weren't 767s but they were non-pilots flying the planes. One of them ended up with everyone on board dead. The pilot let his son in the cockpit and sit in his seat, and he accidentally disconnected the autopilot. In the other, the pilots let two women into the cockpit and made videos of them flying the plane, for almost an hour.

reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter


JCIS...sorry for not typing your full name...folks, he knows what he's talking about. The MCP (mode control panel) on the B757 and B767 has a knob concentric with the heading knob. This is the Bank Angle Selector. It is graduated in 5-degree increments, up to 30. It limits the autopilot bank angle when in Heading mode. Depending on the roll mode engaged at any given time (LNAV, for instance) the autopilot will ignore the Bank Angle selector, it is biased according to its programming...that's why you need a real human to interface with the autoflight system to know its capabilities and limitations.

My point is, regarding whether or not the airplanes were on autopilot when flown into the WTC...no. The autopilots are designed to respond smoothly, especially in LNAV. They can get sensitive when locking on to the LOC and G/S, but that's because precision is needed on the ILS.

The autopilot is designed to not exceed 30degrees of bank.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Zaphod58,

I think one event you mentioned was in Russia, some years ago. It was an Airbus...an A310 I believe. The captain let his teenage son sit in the left seat, I forget where the First Officer was at the time, maybe in the lavatory. Pretty tragic story...

reply to post by Osyris


The two pilots that flew into the World Trade Center both had private pilot certificates, commercial, multiengine land, an instrument flight ratings. It takes a minimum of 250 hours flight time to obtain your commercial license. That information can be found anywhere from wiki to the 9/11 commission report. The Pentagon hijacker had 600 hours total time with a commercial and twin-engine rating. The flight 93 hijacker had a pilot certificate and train for his commercial, multiengine, and IFR certificates. All of them had multiple sessions in Boeing simulators.

May I just post something else, to put some people's minds at ease?l

Access to the Flight Deck is strictly controlled, now more than ever. That is all I will say on the subject.

Someone else, somewhere discussed collision avoidance, and was slightly off the mark when talking about turning left or right. Yes, if you see something, you will turn, or climb. What we've had for some years now is TCAS, where airplanes displaying Mode C (a transponder function that transmits altitude info) are monitored and interpreted as to a collision threat. The (computerized) verbal commands, soft and hard, are vertical only, as in, 'reduce climb', or 'reduce descent'...or 'CLIMB! CLIMB! CLIMB!'

More specifically, modern airliners' transponders have a 'TA/RA' mode. TA is 'traffic advisory' (soft warning) whereas RA is 'resolution advisory' (hard warning). A TA is 'traffic, traffic' verbal. if it gets close, then 'moniter vertical speed' along with appropriate visual indications in the cockpit. SO, those of you who fly in First Class and wonder what you're hearing up there, that's just stuff helping the pilots keep you all safe.


[edit on 29-11-2007 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by tezzajw
Never in my life have I heard of anyone that I know ever being allowed to touch the controls of a 767.

This is a video of me at the controls of a Boeing 707 (KC-135R). We're at 25,000 feet and zipping along. I didn't take-off or land, but I few it for nearly 20 min. It wasn't that hard actually. Of course I had quite a few hours of simulator time on this plane before this so I was used to the layout. In the 20 min time, I flew this thing from way out in the middle of nowhere, into the biggest city in Saudi Arabia.

I'm telling you, I could have hit the broadside a building as wide as a run-way with no problem.



The footage of me flying is cut short because the pilot didn't really want us filming that little detail.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by dbates]

[edit on 29-11-2007 by dbates]

LOL!

Exellent footage dbates. Great work. However, I think you should argue that it's more feasable to hand fly the plane into WTC than using Autopilot.

[edit on 29/11/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]