9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

reply to post by Snarf


Isnt that funny? A pilot cant hit a target that is 208ft wide (WTC1+2 width) or another target that is 921ft wide (Pentagon), but they can land a plane on a runway that is 60-200ft wide. Those must be some crappy pilots. If they cant hit a target that is wider than a runway, then how the hell are they landing our aircraft on targets that are smaller? Or unless they all do it on autopilot. If those are the facts, then I'm taking a train or a boat on my next trip.

Also I recall watching an episode of Mythbusters where they managed to land a plane with only commands from the control tower. Wasnt perfect but they sure landed the planes safely enough. After all, how muc training does it take to fly straight, do a circle, then put it ina dive and aim at the target?

reply to post by plube


" do you not have common sense....2/3 MISSED so lets go with that. "

Standard Operating Procedure for truthers .

If 2/3 couldn't do it then that makes it impossible . Let us all ignore the fact that at least 1/3 of those who tried DID do it .

Psst ... let's not discuss that part of the results because that would prove that it was not impossible and our claims of it being so would be refuted and wouldn't stand up to scrutiny so let's focus only on the 2/3 that failed .

Mornin' GenRadek

[edit on 15-8-2010 by okbmd]

So the planes in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon were not real either?

The people and video from the Penetagon who say the plane are what? Lying or they saw a hologram?

And the plane in Pennsylvania?

They just created a crash sight for some reason? A

nd so far I have seen nothing that tells me that guys with little to no training could not do it.

It seems that their many many places who can "prove" that "proof" is wrong. How do you pick and choose what part of theory you believe and how is any more valid then all the others including the official one.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by MrSpad]

It has been over a year since I did most of my answer-searching for the truth of the 9/11 incidents. I have forgotten some of the details, but 1 fact I remember is that there is no footage of a plane crashing into the Pentagon. Also, the FBI confiscated surveillance videos of nearby hotels and gas stations.

In Pennsylvania, here is an interesting witness account about Shanksville crash site.

How do I "pick and choose"? That's a challenge, I admit. My official belief is that I don't know what happened 9/11; which by default implies that I do not believe the official story, nor do I completely believe other theories. In assessing alleged facts, I generally believe ones that make more sense, which has thus far been predominately non-gov OS accounts.

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by johnny2127

 

When flying into a airport you have someone in the tower telling you the info you need to land safely. These hijackers didn't have that. Even the guy that trained them to fly the Cessna said they couldn't have done it.

Whoa!!! The US has 20,500 airports. Only 500 of those have control towers. The other 20,000, according to you, are unuseable because there is not somebody on the ground telling you something.(???) BS. I would much rather take off and land at my little uncontrolled grass strip at Placid Lakes,(09FA) than go in and out of Atlanta Hartsfield with its TWO towers and various approach controllers. Now, for commercial aviation, by regulation there must be an accredited weather observer on the ground, but nobody on the ground is telling me anything that is necessary for safety. Sure, they can be helpful in giving precise wind info and the guys in Approach are helpful in avoiding big tangled messes of aluminum, but if you believe they are necessary for the safe operation of an aircraft, you are probably an executive with the controller's union, such as it is today. ATC guys are nice guys but I am not "up there" because they are "down there." It's the other way around. They may 'clear' you to land but they sure as hell don't tell you how.

you know what?

if u bring all these evidence to a court against a single person for murdering someone...the guy would be in jail quick..

its a fact this was a fishy thing...

but the interessting problem is...noone cares...

everyone who cares allready know it ...and nothing happend...

the guys who benfefit from it..are gettin richer all day and laught..

even when you have a video where u can see people planting explosives
or someone shooting a rocket in the building...nothing will change..

cause most people dont care or believe...

look what happend with BP....biggest and most horrible thing ever happend to our nature ...and people care more for new iphones ...


i think we on a stage where the "NWO" can do what they want...

Originally posted by drock905
So two thirds couldn't do it.... but the other group could. So what does this mean? It proves the moves made are possible.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by drock905]

Yes the other 1/3 could manage, BUT these guys who did the simulations were top experienced pilots! Guys like Captain C.B. Sully Sullenberger who ditched the Airbus in the Hudson river in NYC. He "could do it" but look at his logbook and flight experience. In essence 99% of pilots would have turned that AB into a submarine if not worse. Captain C.B. Sully Sullenberger is one of them "old school pilots" who still can fly with the seat of his pants, not a Simulator and computer trained newbie.
The same holds for the "pan-cake-free-fall" theory of the WTC collapse. A feat of almost impossible unless controlled demolition. I said "almost" impossible, which means once in a blue moon a steel & concrete building "could collapse" this way, But 3 all on the same day in such perfect crash?
I had said it over and over again in other posts. At least the 2 main towers of the WTC, which were incredibly high and exposed to upper winds should have at least some parts of themselves fall to the SIDE!
And again, back to the pilots. The WTC towers were according to my recollection 270ft wide or close to this number, which is about the width of a runway of a good-sized mayor airport. For a car driver 270ft is "wide" an is akin to the proverbial barn door a novice hunter can't hit. BUT to arrive out from the wast distances and land a plane onto such a width is not that easy. Because unlike a car, planes operate in a 3 dimensional space. You have to correct to the wind that tends to push you sideways. This requires a lot of "foot-work" with the rudders to line her up just right. So in a car the only time you feel the wind is if you are passed by a big 18-wheeler rig or if you drive during a strong storm and the wind hits you form the side. However in an aircraft this wind is a permanent obstacle that has the tendency to push you off course either way. So to hit the towers from a hijacked plane at 30,000ft at position "somewhere", then find NYC, then make out the actual towers visually and then align the aircraft to hit them, not an easy feat. And all the time do this "manually" not with autopilot, not something any "failed Cessna student" can do.

Guenter

I don't understand the premise of these arguments.

So.. if it wasn't suicidal terrorists.. it was what? Our own? We actually got some fine pilots to VOLUNTEER to kill themselves for this cover-up? I'm sorry if I don't buy that. That they were perhaps remote controlled? So.. it's difficult for a professional pilot do to these maneuvers if flying.. and yet somehow, it's -easier- for one to remote control it in instead? I don't buy that, either. People saw them fly into the buildings. We have a video of the event. I can honestly buy that idea easier than some of the purported theories being put forth. I'd believe religiously fanatical and brainwashed terrorists managed to do this, than a hitherto impossible and unseen (before and since) hologram was used to pretend a plane flew into the building, where an explosion was perfectly timed with the event — while meanwhile, we took the real planes and flew them off to a secret location and offed all the passengers and probably the pilots as well in an effort to keep it all covered up. Or many of the other ludicrous theories offered.

How some of you think that these are MORE reasonable ideas about what happened just boggles my mind.

Good read!

The whole 9-11 thing needs to be rebuilt from scratch to make sense. In a sence you need to forget all previously held facts and question them all, otherwise you risk forming new theories that are false because they are based on a previous false pretense.

For example:

If you hold the belief that the attack was done by Osama Bin Laden and his lackies then all further theories will be built on that foundation.

If you believe that the passport of a hijacker survived the blazing impact and heat to the degree to burn down towers that were built to NOT "burn down" then was miraculously found among the debris for verification of the terrorist "story"; well then you are going to have a hard time digesting all the information in the face of that. And as long as you hold that beliefe you have to build off of that foundtation.

The problem is, finding what is actually true and building off that as your foundation.

the pilots testiomony flies in the face of the OS therefor has to be taken into consideration.

It has to be taken into consideration because the OS is built on expert testimony as well, so either expert testimony is viable and acceptable or it is not and shouldn't be considered.

What I wan't to know is who determined what expert testimony wasn't admissable and what was. Honestly the face this investigation is over and case is closed is proof to me its all lies. Because if this were a REAL investigation using unbiased objective information gathering then the case would still be open, it would be impossible to close a case with such a staggering amount of contradictive evidence.

reply to post by okbmd

If 2/3 couldn't do it then that makes it impossible . Let us all ignore the fact that at least 1/3 of those who tried DID do it .

Isn't it hilarious that 3/3's of all the truthers on this site have ignored that FACT in favor of stupidity?

Even now, they're all putting you on ignore. The truth scares these people.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Snarf

 

Isnt that funny? A pilot cant hit a target that is 208ft wide (WTC1+2 width) or another target that is 921ft wide (Pentagon), but they can land a plane on a runway that is 60-200ft wide. Those must be some crappy pilots.

If they cant hit a target that is wider than a runway, then how the hell are they landing our aircraft on targets that are smaller? Or unless they all do it on autopilot.

If those are the facts, then I'm taking a train or a boat on my next trip.

Also I recall watching an episode of Mythbusters where they managed to land a plane with only commands from the control tower. Wasnt perfect but they sure landed the planes safely enough. After all, how muc training does it take to fly straight, do a circle, then put it ina dive and aim at the target?

You are right and wrong.

Fact is that the targets were hit way above the landing speed of the aircraft. This is the crucial issue. On a landing a lot of things happen way before one even sees the airport. You are guided into the approach zone by Air Traffic control. Mind you already in this approach zone your speed gets reduced to a maximum of 275kts, just in case you have to hold and wait your turn. The actual landing speed for a 757 is somewhere around the 120kts a lot LESS than the 400 some kts of normal cruise speed. (1 knot is about 1.1 mph or 1.8kmh) As higher the speed, the wider your turn radius. So to make minute adjustments at 400kts to hit 200ft of target is not that easy as it looks. On top of this take the pentagon hit. This plane was flown for a good mile at 'groundeffect' - again at allegedly high speed. Now this is stuff for F-18 pilots in their jets that are designed for high wingloading. I believe the F-18 has a design margin of 25G wingloading, a 757 has not. In average a general aviation plane as well an airliner are designed for +6/-3G. Fighterpilots pass out at anywhere higher than 7G and above 9G most won't survive, yet their aircraft are designed to handle 25G and not break apart. Civilian airliners are designed and the flight procedures are such that the 90yo grandmother in a wheelchair can still have a nice flight to visit the grand-kids, without passing out during a turn and or gasping for air on take off. FYI: the Concorde had in many aspects flight performances akin to a fighter jet, yet procedures required the pilots NOT to exceed 1.7G on climb-out as to not discomfort the passengers.
Compare the whole 9-11 scenario with one of those experts who jump on shows with their motor bikes across a line of parked cars. And what the OP and the thread is all about that the alleged terrorists performed a stunt similar to those bikers that jump over cars and yet had flying skill akin to a person that could not even drive a Vespa Moped to the wall mart next block, and yet THEY were supposed to perform a feat akin to those stunt bikers.

Guenter

reply to post by Sly1one


I have seen scores of posts where people find it totally incredulous that the passport was found while they conveniently overlook the hundreds of thousands of other paper products that were seen floating around and gathering in the streets that day .

Why do you guys not also find it incredible that all those other paper products were expelled from the towers and survived ?

I also recall reports of some of the personal effects of the passengers being found in the streets . Incredible , as well .

Originally posted by fleabit
I don't understand the premise of these arguments.

So.. if it wasn't suicidal terrorists.. it was what? Our own? We actually got some fine pilots to VOLUNTEER to kill themselves for this cover-up? I'm sorry if I don't buy that. ...

All I am pointing out and what the OP and the thread is about is that they were NOT the alleged newbies that could not even manage a simple Cessna. And YES, even experienced pilots can be suicidal. In fact some time in the 60's a JAL, (Japanese Airlines) pilot dived his 707 into the ground because of a divorce, in the 80's a Philippine Air-force fighter pilot dived his fighter into the ground during a parade fly by, also because of rejection by a girlfriend and one of my former students, Algerian or Moroccan, can't remember anymore, - who was an excellent pilot and soon began to fly on the ATR42 in his home country crashed his plane with some 40 people on board into the Atlas mountains - also because of rejected love. So take now an experience pilot and *SNIP* up his brain with religion and he will do it.
Also consider that in "black ops" it is not unusual to take a total nutcase and hype him up to commit exactly that act of terrorism that you need for your political objectives.
I do not know what others do remember from the actual 9-11 day as it happened, but I found one footage very strange, and this footage I recall like as it had happened yesterday. I watched the whole thing on TV, and I had turned on the TV because of the sudden silence on my airport Dorval, Montreal. I live besides, not under the approach path and so I am used to the steady sounds of planes coming and going, sudden silence! I thought the obvious that there might have been a crash in Dorval and thus turned on the LOCAL TV station. There then did I become aware of the whole 9-11 scenario and then it was just the 1st WTC hit. My TV station replayed a video from a FRENCH TV crew that had accompanied the NYC fire department for a documentary how NYCFD operates. In that footage, the cameraman hears a sudden noise of a low flying airliner and just - (for my taste) too skillfully points the camera up, catches the image of the plane and the impact. They were not blurred images of someone just pointing and filming. It struck me as that this guy had almost KNOWN this would happen.
Then naturally the 2nd plane hit and then watching the collapse of the towers told me right away that what ever the OS was was total BS. Additionally a few days later on CNN, when it was openly discussed that the USA will take military actions in Afghanistan, for a good 30 seconds or longer, the map of IRAQ, not Afghanistan was shown.
All I try to say: There are too many "near impossible & nearly un-doable" events compressed into a mere 2 hours of action.

Guenter

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 15/8/2010 by Mirthful Me]

reply to post by okbmd


And a good mornin to you okbmd!

Another wonderful day here at Langley isnt it? I'm missing a gorgeous morning to sit here and do my job, which I'm not getting paid for.

well I did say before that even a novice pilot can have enough luck and skill to turn, speed up, slow down, and dive a plane into a building. Unless the pilots that were asked to try it themselves were asked to recreate the exact same path, speed, altitude, as the hijackers, which I can see where the problems would arise.

reply to post by cutzE12


Modern planes can fly themselves, but can only fly from one destination to another, some can take off and land but for anything as variable as hitting the twin towers requires a human. You need a few years around the aeronautical world to fully understand how complex it is to hit those buildings.

I have been around planes all my life. My father was 82nd airborne combat vet and after that went on to sport parachute jumping. I had a cousin that owned a charter company and he flew a twin beach bonanza that crashed in lake Michigan. My other cousin had a house that his backyard was a shared private airstrip, he had two planes and was killed doing an aerobatic show for the family.

I never got my license but had flown with others and have been flying flight sims for over a decade. My favorite hobby is learning about aircraft. I am too poor to have one or get a license.

I led a worldwide WW2 combat flight sim squadron and we practiced everyday dogfighting in a very realistic online combat flight sim by MS called combat flight simulator 3. A lot of people flying this are real world pilots. One of my guys in my squad was a commercial 747 pilot and I could outfly him every time. He was always asking advice on how to shake me off his six. The reason I put the squad together was because I wanted to use the German Focke Wulf 190A8 called "the butcher bird" because it was so hard to fly properly and win in combat. It was very difficult and required a lot of flying hours in combat with each other to just be able to go against the British Spitfire Mk21. We were very good, and I was the squad leader that researched how the Germans flew the butcher bird in combat and taught this to my squad.

I can hit the towers only about one out of ten tries. My only conclusion is that they were flown by seasoned combat pilots from a remote location.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by okbmd

 

well I did say before that even a novice pilot can have enough luck and skill to turn, speed up, slow down, and dive a plane into a building. Unless the pilots that were asked to try it themselves were asked to recreate the exact same path, speed, altitude, as the hijackers, which I can see where the problems would arise.

This is not true at all!! Every aircraft handles differently. All aircraft will keep the directional energy going in a certain attitude after corrected by the pilot. That lag is different on every aircraft model. The 757 is very unpredictable in hard maneuvers. That baby will sink like a rock or swing out wide in a turn after correction and will be different at all altitudes and airspeed. The terrain under the craft at low altitude changes the way the craft handles especially in the morning over all those buildings from the different thermals forming from the morning sun after the city cooled down from the nighttime.

Sorry but in your making that statement you do not know what you are talking about.

I never saw a plane hit a building. I did see a television image of a plane hitting a building. A movie producer could have made that. I also heard all kinds of conflicting testimony about the events of that day. I saw a tepid investigation; talk about the fox guarding the henhouse. I also saw Bush and Cheney get on with things as though they still deserved to be employed in the business of defending the country. When it comes to 911 I know absolutely nothing. Nothing has been well explained.

It isn't wise to underestimate human ingenuity or treachery. And anybody can be fooled. You can fool most of the people most of the time.

Suspicions are called for.

The saddest comment one can make about humanity is that we can not trust each other. The government is untrustworthy. The so called conspiracy theorists maybe untrustworthy but so are the authorities.

I want to add that the Carlysle Group, Haliburton, Military Industrial Complex, Silverstein, et al, have made and are still making a hell of a lot of money off the 911 event. A hell of a lot more than Alex Jones or DR Griffin and their ilk.

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
I never saw a plane hit a building. I did see a television image of a plane hitting a building. A movie producer could have made that. I also heard all kinds of conflicting testimony about the events of that day. I saw a tepid investigation; talk about the fox guarding the henhouse. I also saw Bush and Cheney get on with things as though they still deserved to be employed in the business of defending the country. When it comes to 911 I know absolutely nothing. Nothing has been well explained.

It isn't wise to underestimate human ingenuity or treachery. And anybody can be fooled. You can fool most of the people most of the time.

Suspicions are called for.

I saw them with my own 2 eyes, you and most truthers were not there.
Truthers need to stop pretending like they are professional pilots and physics professors and demolitions expert and get real ones to back up their information or become experts themselves.

reply to post by Mythic Chris


You need to stop pretending like you have credibility. I don't know who you are.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by Deuteronomy 23:13]