9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

by eddie Tue Dec 22, 2015 12:03 am

First topic message reminder :

For all you science geeks.
If you don't watch all three vids then don't bother commenting as I want to discuss them.

Made by scientists and comments by experts.

If you sont come away at the very least a little dubious or like this scratch

then you're lying.

And!
If you don't watch it perhaps you don't want to know. If that's the case, don't waste my time trying to debate.

Better to watch on a laptop or biggish screen.
PART ONE

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:59 pm

So for those who think it wasn't a plane, and that the footage of the second plane was fake, do you think that all the News channels which did show a plane were in cahoots with each other so they managed to all show the impact at 9.03?

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 22, 2015 9:48 pm

The alleged nose of the plane could of course be smoke or debris.

Take a look at this.

http://debunkingnoplanes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-nose-out-fallacy.html

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 22, 2015 9:57 pm

Here is the "nose-out" from a different angle. As the person in the blog said, anyone who faked the first footage would not be likely to make the same mistake in other footage.

http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/noseout.html

by Tommy Monk Tue Dec 22, 2015 10:11 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:So for those who think it wasn't a plane, and that the footage of the second plane was fake, do you think that all the News channels which did show a plane were in cahoots with each other so they managed to all show the impact at 9.03?

Well they all managed to show the same footage...

by Tommy Monk Tue Dec 22, 2015 10:25 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Here is the "nose-out" from a different angle. As the person in the blog said, anyone who faked the first footage would not be likely to make the same mistake in other footage.

http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/noseout.html

Maybe same mistake made by different people...

We have all seen how thin and flimsy looking that aircraft are when you see them pieced back together in air crash investigations etc...

This thin aluminium shell would definitely not pass through that huge building recognisably intact the other side!

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 22, 2015 10:35 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Here is the "nose-out" from a different angle. As the person in the blog said, anyone who faked the first footage would not be likely to make the same mistake in other footage.

http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/noseout.html

Maybe same mistake made by different people...

We have all seen how thin and flimsy looking that aircraft are when you see them pieced back together in air crash investigations etc...

This thin aluminium shell would definitely not pass through that huge building recognisably intact the other side!

So are you saying that two completely different people knew it was a ball, and they both tried to superimpose a plane on the footage on two different videos, and they both made the same mistake?

The point is that you can see it's probably smoke or debris.

by eddie Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:05 pm

Thanks for watching the video rags.
Sometimes I see things that I think are something and realise that what I'm seeing isn't what I thought I saw...add that to a panic situation, a lot going on blah blah and there you have it.
One simple explanation.
Human nature.
Not inexplicable.

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:07 pm

eddie wrote:Thanks for watching the video rags.
Sometimes I see things that I think are something and realise that what I'm seeing isn't what I thought I saw...add that to a panic situation, a lot going on blah blah and there you have it.
One simple explanation.
Human nature.
Not inexplicable.

You're welcome. It's quite interesting really - I hadn't seen the ball theory before, or the nose-out one.

by Tommy Monk Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:12 pm

I'm not saying anything about any ball...just that a relatively flimsy aluminium structure doesn't pass through a building of such magnitude and pop out the other side intact any more than a sausage will pass through a saucepan...

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:13 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm not saying anything about any ball...just that a relatively flimsy aluminium structure doesn't pass through a building of such magnitude and pop out the other side intact any more than a sausage will pass through a saucepan...

Do you think that it's probably smoke or debris then?

by eddie Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:16 pm

Within any given situation, especially a panic situation, people don't always have clear and concise recollections, reactions and eye witness accounts.
That goes for both sides of a coin: he saw three white people, someone else saw two Asians, for example, as in the Californian shooting.

Only one of those things are true; there are either two Asians or three white men.
Or perhaps there's another angle: perhaps there were five and only one person saw two of them who were Asian and the other parson only saw the three white men?

That's three truths already.

Well that throws a little doubt on what's actually happened.

Add to that, something else that someone saw, which is different to something else someone else saw....

There are now five different truths regarding this one situation.

Then someone else says, I'm an expert and this couldn't have happened
Then someone else says, I'm an expert and yes it could've have happened

Well now there are seven different truths in the mix.

Keep going and keep going and you end up with 100 different, conflicting truths.

Why are you going to believe a handpicked handful of truths from within that situation and be given them to you and told: THESE ARE THE ONES YOU BELEIEVE

Because they are "above you" in the grand scheme of things?

When something is true, there may be grey areas and there may be bits that are blank. But there are never one hundred conflicting truths.

And that's it for me. If I scratch my head over a part of your story, or something makes no sense, then I don't 100% believe your story.

I think, in all, some people are more susceptible to lies.

by Tommy Monk Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:20 pm

In the original footage shown at the time...?

Seriously... do you..?

by eddie Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:27 pm

Code:

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm not saying anything about any ball...just that a relatively flimsy aluminium structure doesn't pass through a building of such magnitude and pop out the other side intact any more than a sausage will pass through a saucepan...

The guy who designed the towers was scared of heights.
He purposely designed the windows to be 18inches (I think?) wide and the rest of the building is made from steel columns

You can google the design of the towers - it's onlone

There's also the " experts" - the pilots - who have all been in flight simulators and couldn't fly a plane, at that speed into the tower
One of them did it once - he speaks about it, and says how difficult it was for them- and they're expert fliers

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:28 pm

eddie wrote:Within any given situation, especially a panic situation, people don't always have clear and concise recollections, reactions and eye witness accounts.
That goes for both sides of a coin: he saw three white people, someone else saw two Asians, for example, as in the Californian shooting.

Only one of those things are true; there are either two Asians or three white men.
Or perhaps there's another angle: perhaps there were five and only one person saw two of them who were Asian and the other parson only saw the three white men?

That's three truths already.

Well that throws a little doubt on what's actually happened.

Add to that, something else that someone saw, which is different to something else someone else saw....

There are now five different truths regarding this one situation.

Then someone else says, I'm an expert and this couldn't have happened
Then someone else says, I'm an expert and yes it could've have happened

Well now there are seven different truths in the mix.

Keep going and keep going and you end up with 100 different, conflicting truths.

Why are you going to believe a handpicked handful of truths from within that situation and be given them to you and told: THESE ARE THE ONES YOU BELEIEVE

Because they are "above you" in the grand scheme of things?

When something is true, there may be grey areas and there may be bits that are blank. But there are never one hundred conflicting truths.

And that's it for me. If I scratch my head over a part of your story, or something makes no sense, then I don't 100% believe your story.

I think, in all, some people are more susceptible to lies.

If you're not actually a witness yourself, I think the only thing you can do is go on what you think is logical or illogical. For example, this description of white men. For a start, the female witness said they were wearing long sleeves, and that she couldn't see their faces, so how would she know what colour they were? Secondly, an Asian person doesn't necessarily look that dark. Thirdly, I've seen people in the US describe someone as white who I wouldn't describe as white - George Zimmerman. I agree that there are discrepancies in the number of shooters, and the gender of them.

Re 9/11, I just think that such a conspiracy would involve an awful lot of of people, and the chances of them all keeping quiet are pretty low. It would have involved news crews, technical people, the people who were supposedly on the planes and their friends and relatives, air traffic control, and others. I also think it would be very risky to send a "ball" into a large building because anyone in the area could look up at any time and see it.

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:28 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:In the original footage shown at the time...?

Seriously... do you..?

Yes.

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:30 pm

eddie wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I'm not saying anything about any ball...just that a relatively flimsy aluminium structure doesn't pass through a building of such magnitude and pop out the other side intact any more than a sausage will pass through a saucepan...

The guy who designed the towers was scared of heights.
He purposely designed the windows to be 18inches (I think?) wide and the rest of the building is made from steel columns

You can google the design of the towers - it's onlone

There's also the " experts" - the pilots - who have all been in flight simulators and couldn't fly a plane, at that speed into the tower
One of them did it once - he speaks about it, and says how difficult it was for them- and they're expert fliers

I actually do agree that it's amazing that terrorists who only had some pilot training could find their way to New York so easily and fly planes into the towers with such accuracy, but then again, I've never flown a plane so I don't know how difficult that would be.

by eddie Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:Within any given situation, especially a panic situation, people don't always have clear and concise recollections, reactions and eye witness accounts.
That goes for both sides of a coin: he saw three white people, someone else saw two Asians, for example, as in the Californian shooting.

Only one of those things are true; there are either two Asians or three white men.
Or perhaps there's another angle: perhaps there were five and only one person saw two of them who were Asian and the other parson only saw the three white men?

That's three truths already.

Well that throws a little doubt on what's actually happened.

Add to that, something else that someone saw, which is different to something else someone else saw....

There are now five different truths regarding this one situation.

Then someone else says, I'm an expert and this couldn't have happened
Then someone else says, I'm an expert and yes it could've have happened

Well now there are seven different truths in the mix.

Keep going and keep going and you end up with 100 different, conflicting truths.

Why are you going to believe a handpicked handful of truths from within that situation and be given them to you and told: THESE ARE THE ONES YOU BELEIEVE

Because they are "above you" in the grand scheme of things?

When something is true, there may be grey areas and there may be bits that are blank. But there are never one hundred conflicting truths.

And that's it for me. If I scratch my head over a part of your story, or something makes no sense, then I don't 100% believe your story.

I think, in all, some people are more susceptible to lies.

If you're not actually a witness yourself, I think the only thing you can do is go on what you think is logical or illogical. For example, this description of white men. For a start, the female witness said they were wearing long sleeves, and that she couldn't see their faces, so how would she know what colour they were? Secondly, an Asian person doesn't necessarily look that dark. Thirdly, I've seen people in the US describe someone as white who I wouldn't describe as white - George Zimmerman. I agree that there are discrepancies in the number of shooters, and the gender of them.

Re 9/11, I just think that such a conspiracy would involve an awful lot of of people, and the chances of them all keeping quiet are pretty low. It would have involved news crews, technical people, the people who were supposedly on the planes and their friends and relatives, air traffic control, and others. I also think it would be very risky to send a "ball" into a large building because anyone in the area could look up at any time and see it.

News crews? Why?
They are told to fade they are told where to film - or let's say this as a suggestion:
They've only got to put certain people on the cameras haven't they?

Jesus, haven't you watched films that have intricate plots where you think "Wow, that's clever!"

Come on rags. If you can think or imagine it, it can be done. Especially if you have power over most people.

Oh and rags? Most of the time these "happenings" are planted in our heads long before they happen.

by eddie Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I'm not saying anything about any ball...just that a relatively flimsy aluminium structure doesn't pass through a building of such magnitude and pop out the other side intact any more than a sausage will pass through a saucepan...

The guy who designed the towers was scared of heights.
He purposely designed the windows to be 18inches (I think?) wide and the rest of the building is made from steel columns

You can google the design of the towers - it's onlone

There's also the " experts" - the pilots - who have all been in flight simulators and couldn't fly a plane, at that speed into the tower
One of them did it once - he speaks about it, and says how difficult it was for them- and they're expert fliers

I actually do agree that it's amazing that terrorists who only had some pilot training could find their way to New York so easily and fly planes into the towers with such accuracy, but then again, I've never flown a plane so I don't know how difficult that would be.

Well all those pilots, and others, have and do know.

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:45 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

If you're not actually a witness yourself, I think the only thing you can do is go on what you think is logical or illogical. For example, this description of white men. For a start, the female witness said they were wearing long sleeves, and that she couldn't see their faces, so how would she know what colour they were? Secondly, an Asian person doesn't necessarily look that dark. Thirdly, I've seen people in the US describe someone as white who I wouldn't describe as white - George Zimmerman. I agree that there are discrepancies in the number of shooters, and the gender of them.

Re 9/11, I just think that such a conspiracy would involve an awful lot of of people, and the chances of them all keeping quiet are pretty low. It would have involved news crews, technical people, the people who were supposedly on the planes and their friends and relatives, air traffic control, and others. I also think it would be very risky to send a "ball" into a large building because anyone in the area could look up at any time and see it.

News crews? Why?
They are told to fade they are told where to film - or let's say this as a suggestion:
They've only got to put certain people on the cameras haven't they?

Jesus, haven't you watched films that have intricate plots where you think "Wow, that's clever!"

Come on rags. If you can think or imagine it, it can be done. Especially if you have power over most people.

Oh and rags? Most of the time these "happenings" are planted in our heads long before they happen.

The news channels have allegedly doctored the image of a plane according to the conspiracists. The live feed would also have to be not live at all. The front people might be easy to fool if they have no idea what's going on, but the technical people would have to be involved. In films, I think the techie people and the actors are very well aware of what's real and what isn't eddie.

by Guest Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:48 pm

eddie wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I'm not saying anything about any ball...just that a relatively flimsy aluminium structure doesn't pass through a building of such magnitude and pop out the other side intact any more than a sausage will pass through a saucepan...

The guy who designed the towers was scared of heights.
He purposely designed the windows to be 18inches (I think?) wide and the rest of the building is made from steel columns

You can google the design of the towers - it's onlone

There's also the " experts" - the pilots -who have all been in flight simulators and couldn't fly a plane, at that speed into the tower
One of them did it once - he speaks about it, and says how difficult it was for them- and they're expert fliers

Complete and utter rubbish

by Guest Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:

The guy who designed the towers was scared of heights.
He purposely designed the windows to be 18inches (I think?) wide and the rest of the building is made from steel columns

You can google the design of the towers - it's onlone

There's also the " experts" - the pilots - who have all been in flight simulators and couldn't fly a plane, at that speed into the tower
One of them did it once - he speaks about it, and says how difficult it was for them- and they're expert fliers

I actually do agree that it's amazing that terrorists who only had some pilot training could find their way to New York so easily and fly planes into the towers with such accuracy, but then again, I've never flown a plane so I don't know how difficult that would be.

No raggs not really amazing ,i could do it ,and of the top of my head and i could probably program the flight director to do it for me

by Guest Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:00 am

Sorry KD, but you are wrong on this.

Numerous experts commented that the hijackers who flew the aircraft in the 9/11 attacks must have been highly trained and skillful pilots. Tony Ferrante, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration's investigations division, spent several days after 9/11 carefully piecing together the movements of the four aircraft targeted in the attacks. According to author Pamela Freni, Ferrante's "hair stood on end when he realized the precision with which all four airplanes had moved toward their targets." Ferrante said, "It was almost as though it was choreographed," and explained, "It's not as easy as it looks to do what [the hijackers] did at 500 miles an hour." [1]

Darryl Jenkins, the director of the Aviation Institute at George Washington University, told the New York Times that the men who carried out the attacks "knew what they were doing down to very small details." He said, "Every one of them was trained in flying big planes." The Times reported that a "number of aviation experts agreed" with Jenkins and had said that "the hijackers must have been experienced pilots." John Nance, an airline pilot, author, and aviation analyst, said that "the direct hits on the two towers and on the Pentagon suggested to him that the pilots were experienced fliers." Nance pointed to the "smooth banking of the second plane to strike the towers," and said that "precisely controlling a large jet near the ground, necessary for the Pentagon attack, also required advanced skill." Nance concluded, "There's no way an amateur could have, with any degree of reliability, done what was done" in the 9/11 attacks. [2]

A pilot who had been with a major carrier for more than 30 years told CNN that to "pull off the coordinated aerial attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon ... the hijackers must have been extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators." The pilot added, "They know what they were doing." [3]

Robin Lloyd, a Boeing 737 captain with a British airline, told The Telegraph that "the hijackers had to be experienced pilots with more than just a rudimentary knowledge of navigation." Lloyd, who co-runs the Professional Pilots' Rumour Network website, which is "regarded worldwide as one of the prime sources of accurate information for the aviation industry," said the terrorists at the controls of the hijacked aircraft "had to be 100 percent switched on people, 100 percent experienced pilots, probably military trained." He said someone like Osama bin Laden "wouldn't have access to pilots of the caliber needed to pull it off." [4]

John Roden, the president of Aviation Advisory Service, an Oakland, California, consulting firm, said the piloting necessary to navigate the planes to their targets "was very skillful. This is practically fighter pilot technique." [5] And a U.S. Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam War concluded that the hijacked aircraft "either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat or they were being maneuvered by remote control." [6]

'CONSIDERABLE TRAINING' AND 'IN-DEPTH KNOWLEDGE' NEEDED TO FLY 757 AND 767 AIRCRAFT

Two of the aircraft targeted in the 9/11 attacks were Boeing 757s and the other two were Boeing 767s. Experts have commented how difficult it would have been for amateur pilots, like the alleged hijackers, to fly such aircraft.

Aviation experts told the Chicago Tribune, "Unlike a small private plane where pilots generally fly visually, a commercial plane like those hijacked [on September 11] requires a vast command of navigation techniques as well as in-depth knowledge of their myriad systems, from hydraulics to the autopilot." [7] Michael Barr, the director of aviation safety programs at the University of Southern California, and several commercial airline pilots told the Boston Globe that "they assumed that the terrorists were skilled pilots who had to have received some training in flying transport jets, particularly the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft." [8]

Steven Wallach, an aviation consultant and former airline captain, said that if the hijackers "took the controls at high altitude and a long distance from their targets"--as allegedly happened--"then they likely had considerable training in a 767 or 757." Wallach said the hijackers "would have had to descend and navigate to Washington and New York. They would have had to know how to operate the autopilot, as well as other intricate functions." Boeing 767s and 757s have highly sophisticated "glass cockpits" that include video screens and digital readouts, which require the pilots to have an advanced level of computer skills. "To navigate with that glass cockpit, it can be pretty tricky," Wallach said. [9]

HITTING THE WTC LIKE 'THREADING THE EYE OF A NEEDLE'

Some experts commented specifically on the flying skills that would have been necessary to crash planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

Kieran Daly, the editor of the Internet publication Air Transport Intelligence, said, "Flying an aircraft into a building is not as simple as it appears." He said the hijackers "would have needed some experience to have been able to steer the planes into the World Trade Centre." [10]

Robin Lloyd compared the targets of the WTC towers to "narrow runways tipped vertically." From "switching off the autopilot," the hijackers "would have to know how to control the aircraft and be able to find the target," he said. Lloyd said that "rag-trousered terrorists with no flying experience could not have hit" the Twin Towers. [11]

Michael Barr said the hijackers who flew the planes into the WTC "had to change course ... had to know how to navigate." [12] Barr, who is a former Air Force fighter-bomber pilot, said the hijacker pilots "almost had to hit the towers like they were threading the eye of a needle." He commented on the difficulty the pilots would have had in synchronizing their attacks so they hit the two WTC towers about 15 minutes apart, saying: "The routes they were flying were very different--one plane coming from the north and the other coming from the south. That adds greatly to the complexity and it requires a degree of skill to prevent the planes from banking too much or descending too fast while keeping on course." Barr added that the piloting skills apparently exhibited by the hijackers indicated that "months and months of planning and training were involved." He concluded, "Unfortunately, these guys were good." [13]

A 767 pilot told the Boston Globe: "The perpetrators were trained pilots and trained to operate the 757-767 family of aircraft. ... t did not seem to bother them that the flying was very demanding." This pilot noted that video showed that the second aircraft to hit the WTC was banked, or turning, as it struck the tower, "making the maneuver more difficult." He added, "To hit something with an airplane is easy only if you have been flying for 20 years." [14]

Niki Lauda, the former Formula One world champion who is also a pilot and owned his own airline, said on German TV that whoever flew the aircraft into the WTC must have been "properly trained to fly a plane like that." He said: "You have to know exactly what the turning radius of a plane like that is, if I am trying to hit the World Trade Center. That means, these had to be fully trained 767 or 757 pilots. ... It certainly could not be the case that some half-trained pilot tries it somehow, because then he will not hit it." [15]

AIRCRAFT THAT HIT THE PENTAGON 'WAS FLOWN WITH EXTRAORDINARY SKILL'

A particularly high level of skill would have been needed to fly an aircraft into the west wall of the Pentagon. CBS News reported: "Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes. ... [T]he complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed." [16] A "top aviation source" called the maneuver "a nice, coordinated turn," which, according to one law enforcement official, was the work of "a great talent ... virtually a textbook turn and landing." [17] Other "aviation sources" told the Washington Post that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon "was flown with extraordinary skill." [18]

According to the Chicago Tribune, authorities said the terrorist who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon displayed "proficiency in the aircraft's advanced navigation and automated flight systems. ... Such systems require pilots to program the desired course heading and altitude into an onboard computer, and the plane carries out the instructions." [19]

Dave Esser, the head of the aeronautical engineering department at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida, told CNN that "the highest level of navigational ability would have been needed" with Flight 77. Roger Richie, a spokesman for Flight Safety Academy, a flight school in Vero Beach, Florida, added: "It's not that simple when you're heading over [Ohio], to come back and find the Pentagon. You need to know what you are doing." [20]

Ed Soliday, a highly qualified and experienced former airline captain, told the 9/11 Commission that he had been talking about piloting skills with a military officer at the Pentagon, and had remarked to the officer "how tough it would be for any pilot, including himself, to hit the Pentagon directly." Soliday said the "feel" to hit the Pentagon by flying a 757 manually would not have been easy, particularly because of the building's low profile, and would have required the pilot who undertook the task to have had significant "simulator time." Soliday told the Commission that "if he were going to do the Pentagon, he would try to do it all on the autopilot because of how difficult it was." [21] However, the autopilot on Flight 77 was disengaged at 9:29 a.m. and remained off for the final eight minutes the plane was in the air, according to a study of information from the plane's flight data recorder by the National Transportation Safety Board. [22]

The 767 pilot who talked to the Boston Globe similarly said hitting the Pentagon would have been "extremely difficult." He added, "One degree off and [the pilot] either overshoots it or undershoots it." [23] Gary Eitel, an experienced military pilot, said that "the maneuver performed by Flight 77, as described in official reports, was beyond the capabilities of 90 percent of even the best and most experienced pilots in the world." Eitel said that "he was amazed by the piloting skill used to steer Flight 175 into the second tower. Flight 77 boggled his mind." [24]

Niki Lauda said that "to fly downwards out of a curve and still hit the building in its core, I would have to be the best trained [pilot] of all." He speculated that "a normal airline pilot would have a hard time with that, because you are simply not prepared for things like that." Therefore, Lauda concluded, "They must have had some super-training to have been able to handle an airliner so precisely." [25]

While these experts indicated an extraordinary level of piloting skills would have been necessary to carry out the 9/11 attacks, the four men supposedly at the controls of the hijacked aircraft were in fact notable for their lack of such skills and for their limited flying experience.

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-12/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who-became-super-pilots-september-11

by Guest Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:22 am

No i am really not wrong
i have flown flight simulators for the best part of 30 years and although that does not make me a pilot or qualified in any aspect of aviation i can tell you its a lot easier to crash a plane than it is to land it

before Microsoft patched the game "micro soft flight simulator" you could indeed fly planes in to the twin towers i did it my self many times then they turned of the collision then removed them completely

ps
micro soft flight simulator is the same software actually used to train pilots

by Guest Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:28 am

CONSIDERABLE TRAINING' AND 'IN-DEPTH KNOWLEDGE' NEEDED TO FLY 757 AND 767 AIRCRAFT

FALSE i certainly could do it

HITTING THE WTC LIKE 'THREADING THE EYE OF A NEEDLE'

FALSE
Threading a needle has a purpose of putting the thread trough the eye
if i wanted to hit the head of the needle without needing to put the thread trough i could do that all day and repeatedly

AIRCRAFT THAT HIT THE PENTAGON 'WAS FLOWN WITH EXTRAORDINARY SKILL'

False
it takes ZERO skill to crash

by Guest Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:29 am

Yep, but as you say, you have been doing it on something that trains pilots, I presume of planes like 747s, for 30yrs. The men who were supposed to have flown the planes had two weeks on light aircraft.

by Guest Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:31 am

sassy wrote:Yep, but as you say, you have been doing it on something that trains pilots, I presume of planes like 747s, for 30yrs. The men who were supposed to have flown the planes had two weeks on light aircraft.

principles exactly the same

by Guest Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:33 am

hardest thing about flying
Take offs and landings

crashing is easy

by eddie Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:56 pm

korban dallas wrote:hardest thing about flying
Take offs and landings

crashing is easy

Sorry KD, with much respect, I will stand by the expert analysis and opinions of trained and skilled pilots who have flown those planes for years.
You're not an expert on this, and that's the end of that argument for me.

by Original Quill Wed Dec 23, 2015 8:02 pm

Anyone can figure it out. Flying takes three things: thrust, speed and altitude. Speed and altitude can be traded off, one yielding the other, and vice versa.

But you need thrust to start/stop the process of speed and altitude. That is: engine push and brakes. That's why take-off and landing are the most dangerous parts of flying. And of those two, take-off is the most vulnerable...although hitting the ground hurts the most.

Straight and level flight is quite easy, unless there is traffic.

by eddie Thu Dec 24, 2015 11:56 pm

I love the way everyone can fly a plane and is an "expert"

I think I will become an expert in everything too. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Thu Dec 24, 2015 11:58 pm

eddie wrote:I love the way everyone can fly a plane and is an "expert"

I think I will become an expert in everything too.

Well thats not true

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Dec 25, 2015 12:03 am

eddie wrote:I love the way everyone can fly a plane and is an "expert"

I think I will become an expert in everything too.

Lol! I'm glad you've finally realised how the game is played. There are armchair experts on here who think they're better than those who are actually qualified and experienced.

Just pretend you know everything about science, business, politics and history and never admit you don't know anything, are unsure or have made a mistake. Ever.

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Dec 25, 2015 12:05 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
eddie wrote:I love the way everyone can fly a plane and is an "expert"

I think I will become an expert in everything too.

Lol! I'm glad you've finally realised how the game is played. There are armchair experts on here who think they're better than those who are actually qualified and experienced.

Just pretend you know everything about science, business, politics and history and never admit you don't know anything, are unsure or have made a mistake. Ever.

by Guest Fri Dec 25, 2015 2:02 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! I'm glad you've finally realised how the game is played. There are armchair experts on here who think they're better than those who are actually qualified and experienced.

Just pretend you know everything about science, business, politics and history and never admit you don't know anything, are unsure or have made a mistake. Ever.

Really !!.......... Well your the expert.? Shocked

by Sponsored content

9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

Re: 9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS