Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

9/11 conspiracy theory again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 9/11 conspiracy theory again

    Hi Guys, i realise this has been done millions of times....and please dont burn me for posting this and not just searching.....as somebody with 1 year of frequent flying under his belt (following 40 years as a fearful but not regular flyer) i've become really interested in aviation....and of course this day was one that a) contributed to my fear....and b) probably had the biggest impact on life as we know it today.

    so.....i'd be really interested in pilots either confirming or rebutting his comments in this...especially the actual flying the plane ones....and the only pilots i 'know' are in here!


  • #2
    I, for one,would like to see a copy of the actual affidavit, not the article writer's interpretation thereof.

    Comment


    • #3
      Parts of the aircraft were recovered.

      And if the aircraft did not hit the towers what caused their collapse.

      And what about the Pentagon - I saw lots of photos of aircraft debris.

      Sounds like someone is trying t0 profit from 9/11.

      Comment


      • #4
        The flying part is not only possible, but quite easy in fact.

        I don't understand how (except following some agenda) an experienced pilot can say that it would be impossible for a low time pilot to hit a static target or to manage the descent (which was not so well managed anyway).

        Not to mention that I'd say you need to give an alternative explanation for all the evidence that planes DID hit the towers, including the collapse of the towers, the dozens of videos showing the moment of the impact (especially the second one which was simultaneously broadcast live by several different news sources), hundreds or thousands of witness, the fact that the planes and the persons on board are nowhere, and a gazillion of etceteras.

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #5
          In the interest of full disclosure, I, too, have some issues with the official version of events of 9/11, but that notwithstanding and with all due deference to Capt Lear's experience, I'm not sure it's appropriate to say with certainty what's "physically impossible" in this case without being either a structural or mechanical engineer (of which he, I believe, is neither) and even then without having some hard data.

          This is why I'd like to read the affidavit, I'm curious to know what he actually said.

          Comment


          • #6
            Gabriel....not knowing what its like to actually fly a passenger jet this was what struck me the most. since that fateful day its been mooted they had lessons flying light aircraft which was enough to apparently guide them.....knowing a bit more now (from my study into aircraft...very high level to conquer my fear) i think i would not know where to start....i've flown a light airplane..and i think it would feel very different.
            how would i know how far to turn the yoke?? to even aim it....if i tuen too far will it not just flip?? or does the feel of the aircraft allow this pretty easy?? meaning he wouldnt need to control speed, or pitch...or flaps....or any of the other wonderful things pilots know how to do??

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by andyb99 View Post
              Gabriel....not knowing what its like to actually fly a passenger jet this was what struck me the most. since that fateful day its been mooted they had lessons flying light aircraft which was enough to apparently guide them.....knowing a bit more now (from my study into aircraft...very high level to conquer my fear) i think i would not know where to start....i've flown a light airplane..and i think it would feel very different.
              how would i know how far to turn the yoke?? to even aim it....if i tuen too far will it not just flip?? or does the feel of the aircraft allow this pretty easy?? meaning he wouldnt need to control speed, or pitch...or flaps....or any of the other wonderful things pilots know how to do??
              Two words: Fundamental airmanship

              Yeah, it's real.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by andyb99 View Post
                Gabriel....not knowing what its like to actually fly a passenger jet this was what struck me the most. since that fateful day its been mooted they had lessons flying light aircraft which was enough to apparently guide them.....knowing a bit more now (from my study into aircraft...very high level to conquer my fear) i think i would not know where to start....i've flown a light airplane..and i think it would feel very different.
                how would i know how far to turn the yoke?? to even aim it....if i tuen too far will it not just flip?? or does the feel of the aircraft allow this pretty easy?? meaning he wouldn't need to control speed, or pitch...or flaps....or any of the other wonderful things pilots know how to do??
                The turning part is the easiest one. Even without any pilot skills, you can do it with minimal motor coordination skills. Your eyes close the feedback loop: if it's too much, you relieve force. If it's too little, you add force. And it was not a tight turn that needed to end in the building. One was a long "final" leg, and the other was a wide turn where you can always increase or decrease the rate as needed.

                To manage the energy would be harder. They hit the buildings at overspeed. I don't thing that that was intentional, because they were risking a structural failure what would have been a mission failure. I think it was bad energy management, They could't coordinate the pitch and throttle to stabilize the descent.

                I'm sure that my brother, with zero actual plane time but hundreds of flightsim time, would have made it much better than these guys.

                Actually, just after 9/11 but before we knew that these guys had actual flight training, we were discussing with a group of friends. They were saying that it's impossible that people who were not professional pilots could have done this. I was saying that, on the contrary, it was very easy. At a point I said "Want to try?". So we went to my computer and I gave one of them a 10 minutes theoretical/practical lesson with MSFS about how to fly an airplane:
                - To climb pull back on the yoke. But be careful: the same than in a car, if you start going uphill you'll loose speed unless you add gas. To descend push forward on the yoke, but be careful because you'll gain speed unless you reduce the gas. If you climb or dive too steeply, it can be impossible to keep the desired speed regardless of the gas.
                - To turn you have to turn the wheel, establish the desired bank and center the wheel (+/- small adjustments) to keep the desired bank. To stop the turn turn the wheel in the opposite direction to level the wings.
                - During turns, the noose will tend to go down. Pull up as needed to compensate.
                I swear it was just 10 minutes.

                I set up the plane at cruise altitude, aimed in the general direction of Manhattan, and said "Your plane, find the twin towers and hit one of them". She did at the first attempt and with a very smooth flying indeed. I was amazed myself. I didn't expect that it would be SO easy.

                And before anybody says "but this was flight simulator, not the real thing", well, MSFS can be not very realistic at the limit of the envelope and in stalls, spins, or can not give accurate fuel burns or V1 cut distances. But general (not close to max performance) climbs, descents and turns are piece of cake to simulate and the virtual plane reacts just the same that the real one.

                So these guys had formal flight training, they probably did a lot of MSFS, they had all the Boeing manuals, they have they rooms covered with documents and full-size sketches of the cockpit, and IIRC they took a real-thing, actual type, flight simulator class (with a real heavy-iron flight simulator like the ones real pilots use for real training).

                Bottom line:
                Hitting a building is easy.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  ...And before anybody says "but this was flight simulator, not the real thing"...
                  Sure...MSFS feels totally different from a real plane.

                  Then again a 172 feels totally different from a 757.

                  And a Lear jet feels totally different from a 747.

                  Then again- a constant attitude, or very limited banks and pitch changes are not totally different. In fact- it's very similar.

                  Neither is wheel right bank right....pull back nose up (and vice versa) a thing that's different...It works the same. And if you do it gently, the planes in general respond gently. (Someone say something about fundamental airmanship?)

                  Bottom line- while you may not have a clue of the exact control input to make an extremely precise turn to intercept and nail an ILS to 200 feet and 1/2 mile, you can do all sorts of gentle, but sloppy inputs on a beautiful, crystal clear fall day to point the airplane in the right direction and probably keep the speed something between stall and break-up-and-die speed.

                  (PS "Totally" is an absolute term that I used in a tongue-in-cheek sense)
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Bottom line:

                    Yes, many many people have tried and succeeded in profiting off 9/11 mythology. The truth is invariably less entertaining: that a group of radicalized Islamic terrorists driven by vengeance, representing a well known threat to U.S. national security agencies at that time, agencies that had actually intercepted their intentions to attack buildings with aircraft, breeched a slumbering nation's anemic aviation security provisions, carrying knives easily through security checkpoints and onto aircraft lacking any serious locks on their cockpit doors, despite this clear and present threat.

                    The fact that on this day America got its ass kicked by a small gang of brainwashed Middle Eastern idiots is too much for some people to accept so they have to inflate the scenario, as Bush did, into an act of war or, conversely, into a preposterously intricate internal conspiracy.

                    There is no shortage of opportunists who recognize this need and feel no shame in exploiting it, whether by selling hats and t-shirts or conspiracy theory entertainment... because there's no shortage of people who buy into this stuff.

                    It's just another industry.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      Bottom line:

                      Yes, many many people have tried and succeeded in profiting off 9/11 mythology. The truth is invariably less entertaining: that a group of radicalized Islamic terrorists driven by vengeance, representing a well known threat to U.S. national security agencies at that time, agencies that had actually intercepted their intentions to attack buildings with aircraft, breeched a slumbering nation's anemic aviation security provisions, carrying knives easily through security checkpoints and onto aircraft lacking any serious locks on their cockpit doors, despite this clear and present threat.
                      You forgot the part where they could't guide the interceptors to the targets because, while being on radar, they didn't know which of the targets were "the" targets.

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        You forgot the part where they could't guide the interceptors to the targets because, while being on radar, they didn't know which of the targets were "the" targets.
                        Controllers in Boston tracked Flight 11 all the way down on primary radar despite the loss of the transponder. Interceptors weren't giving this information due to poor communication between the FAA, NEADS and NORAD. Essentially, like airport security at that time, there was no proactive planning against such an attack despite the threat being already known and discussed.

                        It wouldn't have made any difference however because at that time interceptors were not intended to be used to shoot down threatening passenger aircraft:

                        Quoting Maj.Gen. Larry Arnold: "We always viewed an attack from within our borders as a law enforcement issue, ...". Military aircraft were to be used to assure positive flight following, report unusual observances, and aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency.
                        An actual shootdown would have required the command of VP Dick Cheney, and even after the strikes on WTC 1 and 2 he had instructed NORAD not to shoot down Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon. I doubt he was fully aware of the nature of the threat it posed due to similar failures in bureaucratic levels of information exchange.

                        But it's all academic. If airport security was on the ball that day, no knives would have made it aboard and if the FAA didn't have its head up its ass all cockpit doors would have been adequately armored. And then there would never have been any need to track or scramble anything.

                        And today, over 12 years later, the costly and ongoing Operation Noble Eagle has countered those communication inadequacies, airport security at gates is highly vigilant and yet people continue to climb perimeter fences undetected and climb into wheel wells...

                        zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          Not to mention that I'd say you need to give an alternative explanation for all the evidence that planes DID hit the towers, including the collapse of the towers, the dozens of videos showing the moment of the impact (especially the second one which was simultaneously broadcast live by several different news sources), hundreds or thousands of witness, the fact that the planes and the persons on board are nowhere, and a gazillion of etceteras.
                          As with any good conspiracy theory, the supposed theory actually creates a LOT more questions and gives few answers, even though those who peddle them seem to believe the opposite.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                            you can do all sorts of gentle, but sloppy inputs on a beautiful, crystal clear fall day to point the airplane in the right direction and probably keep the speed something between stall and break-up-and-die speed.
                            This always gets me about 9/11. It was a beautiful clear and sunny day up and down the entire east coast. Without that the outcome would have been likely very different, and with 500 ft overcast and rain, the twin towers would likely still be standing today, the pentagon unscathed.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Leftseat86 View Post
                              This always gets me about 9/11. It was a beautiful clear and sunny day up and down the entire east coast. Without that the outcome would have been likely very different, and with 500 ft overcast and rain, the twin towers would likely still be standing today, the pentagon unscathed.
                              Or destroyed one week later than it was.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X