9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by Alfie1
Both WTC hi-jack pilots and the Pentagon pilot had commercial pilot's licenses. The records of their training show that it is absurd for you to claim that they would not understand the instruments of a Boeing 757 or 767.

"weak student" who "was wasting our resources."

I didn't allow him to come back. I thought, 'You're never going to make it.' www.capecodonline.com..."" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Source

He also was trained for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish the course because instructors felt he was not capable.Source

instructors regarded him as a poor student, even in the weeks before the attacks.

"He had only the barest understanding what the instruments were there to do"

got overwhelmed with the instruments." He used the simulator perhaps three or four more times, Fults said, then "disappeared like a fog." www.capecodonline.com..."" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Washington Post, 10/15/2001

"He could not fly at all." -New York Times (5/04/02)

flying skills were so bad...they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license.

" I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had." Peggy Chevrette, Arizona flight school manager."CBS News (5/10/02)

More here...
Click

reply to post by weedwhacker

The "remote control" nonsense is only suggested by people who have NO idea about anything involving airplanes, airliners and aviation in general.

Thanks again for given your bias opinions and nothing else.
I do not support your theories, or your opinions and you are not the authority of commercial aviation. Perhaps, you feel giving your opinions are the truth, perhaps they are your truths, but they are not mine and many others who take researching the events of 911 very seriously.

AND, you have to (in this R/C fantasy world) accept FOUR airliners being "modified" to remote control capability. Hundreds of manhours, and equipment needed. The contractors to build this equipment, then to install it. The down time for the airplanes, and the facilities to actually do the "installations". The testing, and working out any bugs. Etc.

You do not know how any remote controls technologies were installed or who could have done it, so stop acting as you’re the expert in remote control technology, we are only suggesting it is possible, because we know the technology existed many years before 911.

We are not as stupid as you may think we all are, your opinions are yours, they are not proof that remote control technology was not used. Some of us are well aware of the government covering up their false flag operation and that would include destroying all evidence of remote control planes used that day.

One thing we all know that is true is all the usual protocols for investigating plane crashes were not done for the first time in aviation history in America all we got was lies and the government silence. All the excuses and opinions you give us do not add up. Don’t waste your time talking down to intelligent people, we can read and see though peoples agendas, egos, Patriotism, and mind games.

AND, with that many people involved, NO ONE has leaked a word? The "remote control" idea is as ridiculous as the laser beams from outer space fringe "beliefs". But, with the people who will not listen to reality, and logic, they will continue to believe this junk, much as the people who believe in a religion will ignore the logical inconsistencies, and continue in their delusional devotion.

We did not say the entire military was involved, in fact most of us know this operation “could” be carried out by a handful of treasonous experts. You paint an entire different picture that is completely ridiculous.

Oh, and one last thing: The NTSB Reports from the two DFDRs that were recovered, American 77 and United 93. Unfortunately, most so-called "9/11 truthers" won't let those facts past their already biased "belief" filters. Any pilot who's familiar with any modern Boeing can look at the data, and see exactly where the controls in the cockpit --- not just the flight controls, but the various autopilot and flightmode programming controls are changed, manually, by human hand. AND, every case is logical, and makes complete sense in the proper sequence, as would occur in real time, real life with real humans doing it, for real reasons.

Perhaps so, however we can say the same for many of you OS defenders who “won't let those facts past their already biased "belief" filters completely” by totally ignoring the given facts that the data that was given by the government about flight 93 was a complete lie.

United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar

pilotsfor911truth.org...

There is plenty of real evidence that proves the government lied about the data from flight 77.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Too bad the "9/11 religious" are so blinded by their misguided piety......

Your insults will not make the truth go away, no matter how hard you try.

reply to post by tortillawraps

Look as I have mentioned previously, the aircraft would've been in autopilot mode,on the flight deck, on the main panel is a computer system, it looks like a big calculator, you select your designation you want to go to and the autopilot will steer the liner in the correct direction, all the terrorists would have to do is up if down their speed by changing the dial left or right, same with the altitude. Once they were close to their intended target they turn of the auto pilot, then put the aircraft into their Target, it is not too difficult with bit of understanding.

Wee mad

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Your cherry-picked quotes are noted. There are a lot of quotes about and comments on quotes :-

www.911myths.com...

Are you suggesting that commercial pilot certification in the US cannot be taken to mean anything much ?

These guys weren't going out to tangle with the Red Baron. They took over aircraft which the regular crew had taken off for them and their sole function was to crash them into 3 very big buildings.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Your cherry-picked quotes are noted. There are a lot of quotes about and comments on quotes :-

www.911myths.com...

Are you suggesting that commercial pilot certification in the US cannot be taken to mean anything much ?

These guys weren't going out to tangle with the Red Baron. They took over aircraft which the regular crew had taken off for them and their sole function was to crash them into 3 very big buildings.

None of the quotes I listed are addressed at your link. However, it appears even "Another Expert" which is touted by "911Myths" doesn't even agree with you and your obfuscation brigade of such aircraft control is "easy", by stating that such "pilots" would have a "very high failure rate" if attempted again.

Also, by the time one obtains their Commercial, they are intimately familiar with these diagrams and the reason manufacturer's set an aircraft red line (unlike weedwhacker, et al). It is drilled into every pilot that if red line is exceeded, you risk structural failure and loss of control.

How does that measure up with your "Hijacker" pilot's and their mission?

In other words, if they were "Commercial" pilots, why would they risk structural failure and loss of control before completing their mission? Especially 150 knots into the Structural Failure Zone?




It seems you want your cake and to eat it too. They were so good to get their Commercial pilot certificates, but were unaware of the consequences of exceeding aircraft red line.

You can't have it both ways I'm afraid. Although you try.

Originally posted by tortillawraps
I do not believe that those planes were hand flown. How anyone without proper training could even know how to navigate to NY let alone hit a small target at such speeds is simply impossible.

Lets see did the 2 towers just suddenly appear in front of them they would have seen them from miles away. On the gadget shown in the UK last week one of the presenters was set a challenge to learn to fly a plane, he had to take off ,complete a circuit of the airfield then land back on the runway he had 8 weeks, he was NOT allowed any time in an aicraft all training was on simulators guess what he did it!!!

People are saying that reports on the hijackers flying skills would suggest they were bad pilots was that an act to reduce any suspicion on their possible intentions.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Lets see they were intent on crashing the planes so structural failure over one the the worlds most densely built up and populated areas would that have worried them DONT THINK SO it was a win win situation for them if the planes broke up damage over a large area if not they hit their target at a higher speed so inflicted as much damage as possible as was the case.

As we have many videos of the aicraft approaching the towers has anyone used one or more of the videos to work out the speed.

All the information would be there we know the aircraft size we know the building sizes so has it been done

reply to post by Lord Jules


Ok they were remote control.....

Where did the 2....3....4 real airlines go to?

Where did all the real people on those planes go to?

Where did the remote control airplanes take off from and where did they build them?

How did they stealth the remote control airplanes until the perfect moment they switched them?

How did they use satellite communications, since line of sight would have been impossible at the altitude the planes flew?

Why is remote controlled a so much more viable answer than just a few humans doing it? A few humans scenario would not need to answer all these unanswerable questions, plus these are just a few questions off the top of my head and with a little more effort I bet I could come up with a few dozen more that can’t be answered either.
I think the bottom line is when you actually answer most of these, and I mean with proof, then UAV might be an option, but just to pull it out of one’s butt as an answer means little.

I fly and teach UAVs, so I kind of know what they would need and it would be a extremely complex scenario.

reply to post by wmd_2008


You might be interested to see these calculations by an MIT professor , based on videorecordings, which Varemia posted a few pages back :-

web.mit.edu...

You will see that he calculates the final speed of UA 175 at 503 mph which I make 438 knots. So very different from the 510 knots which seems to be being used exclusively here.

Someone will soon shoot me down if I am wrong but I think the 510 knots is an FAA figure based on radar. However, there also seems to be an NTSB estimate of 473 to 477 knots.

All in all it seems there isn't a consensus as to UA 175's final speed.

reply to post by Alfie1


Alfie -

You really need to read this thread.

There are many different speeds "estimated".

The speed reported by the NTSB based on ASR radar is 510 knots.

NTSB Radar Speed Study - 9 mb pdf.

This analysis was done based on the same radar that is used to vector aircraft in busy terminal areas, such as NYC.

I don't know about you, but when my ass is in the seat on an approach in instrument meteorological conditions (read: Fog), I'd much rather have ATC vectoring me and assigning speeds with ASR radar, than an MIT professor 'estimating' speed.

The NTSB also corroborated their radar analysis with a Video analysis.

NTSB Video Speed Study - 8mb pdf

Summary -

Using distances taken directly from the video screen, flight 175's groundspeed was calculated to be between 473 and 477 Knots just prior to the collision with the building. Using distances taken from video screen prints, groundspeed at impact of 504 Knots and 507 Knots were calculated. This compares to an impact speed of 510 Knots calculated from radar data in the Radar Data Impact Speed Study (AA11 & UA 175)

Again Alfie, this all was posted ad nauseam in this thread, read it.

reply to post by Xtrozero


and are we not talking about,a government that has the biggest military budget in history..

and i do belive there is well over 2 TRILLION dollars missing unaccounted for at the time of the 9/11 event...i think that might cover this theory.?

and i've though about it a lot,and if i was charged with setting up this 9/11 event,i would more then likely use the R/C option...it just seems logical..takes away the human error,or last minute panic...and would also explain the outrageous flying on that day.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


I think you are agreeing with me; sort of. There are various estimated final speeds for UA 175.

I don't accept that is is reasonable to dismiss the findings of an MIT Professor as being of no account.

Don't know which estimate, if any, is right, but if the Professor is then we are considering 75 knots over vmo and not 150.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

I think you are agreeing with me; sort of. There are various estimated final speeds for UA 175.

Of course I am agreeing with you with respect to speeds reported. There is in fact many different "estimates", but only one that is reliable (or at least relied upon daily so aircraft are not crashing into each other).

Again Alfie -

Which would you rather have vectoring and assigning speeds for your aircraft, or the aircraft your family is on, during an approach in fog?

ATC with ASR Radar?

An "MIT professor"?

FEMA?

NIST?

All of the above reported speeds based on their analysis.

Which do you consider the most reliable? Try not to let your bias get in the way.

Also, I spent a few more minutes putting together a new instructional tool for the V-G diagram since it appears some here have been confused for over 73 pages with respect to the fundamentals of a V-G.

Enjoy -

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


I am saying I don't know which estimated speed for UA 175 is right, but I am not as ready as you to dismiss an MIT professor.

If your VG diagram is right, and the professor is right, seems to me that Ua 175 was at the top end of the " Caution " area; shock, horror !

( btw, can't actually believe it is possible to go from "caution" to "structural failure" at a specific line. )

Originally posted by Alfie1


If your VG diagram is right, and the professor is right,

The "Professor" is wrong based on ASR radar.

Again Alfie -

Which would you rather have vectoring and assigning speeds for your aircraft, or the aircraft your family is on, during an approach in fog?

ATC with ASR Radar?

An "MIT professor"?

FEMA?

NIST?

seems to me that Ua 175 was at the top end of the " Caution " area; shock, horror !

Wrong again Alfie.

Please learn the definition of Vd as taught by every flight school on this planet, and Vd as set by Boeing based on wind tunnel and flight testing. The above diagrams and evidence list I have provided might give you a clue.

Let us know when you will stop evading the above questions and when you get some evidence for your argument.

Alfies' "MIT Professor".

The velocities listed in this table for the two WTC planes are in excellent agreement
with flight data based on radar provided by the NTSC1.

First of all Alfie, what is the "NTSC"?

Next -

The radar speeds are basically 10% larger

No, there is a 15% difference.

I stopped reading there as it's just too laughable.

This guy is an "MIT Professor"?

It appears attention to detail is lost on him.

Those who took his courses should get their money back.

Originally posted by snapperski
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

and are we not talking about,a government that has the biggest military budget in history..

and i do belive there is well over 2 TRILLION dollars missing unaccounted for at the time of the 9/11 event...i think that might cover this theory.?

Notice how none of my questions had anything to do with money. They are based on physical things that either needed to disappear off the face of the earth or appear out of thin air. We are also talking a large project that means a large number of people involved, and we have zero, nothing, jack….well you get the idea.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Hey Xtrozero -

You claim to be a pilot?

Which would you rather have assigning speeds for your approach?

ATC with ASR Radar?

FEMA?

NIST?

or...

An "MIT professor" who doesn't seem to be able to calculate a proper percentage, nor is familiar with the NTSB?

Alfie seems to be having a bit of a problem with this question.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Hey Xtrozero -

You claim to be a pilot?

Which would you rather have assigning speeds for your approach?

ATC with ASR Radar?