|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
9th April 2016, 06:51 AM | #161 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
|
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
9th April 2016, 07:04 AM | #162 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
|
9th April 2016, 07:08 AM | #163 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
There is a great deal of publicly available information showing this technology was well advanced long before 2006.
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/0...ote-hijacking/ |
9th April 2016, 07:10 AM | #164 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,042
|
|
9th April 2016, 07:15 AM | #165 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
Do you think they could disable recording of auto-pilot activity in the FDR? Or is the FDR data faked? I don't want to be committing a false dilemma fallacy, so if it's neither of these, which one do you think it is?
I'm asking because the FDR data shows that the autopilot was disconnected and the planes were fled by hand during the last few minutes. |
9th April 2016, 07:46 AM | #166 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
Not at all. The systems were doe the uap are based on those that had been developed earlier, yes, but until that time no one had done it. The 1984 720 flight and test crash require substantial modifications to the cockpit to install the remote control gear into the plane. It took then 4 years to get the experiment setup.
The 2006 uap was in response to Bush calling for something after 9/11. |
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
9th April 2016, 07:48 AM | #167 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
|
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
9th April 2016, 07:50 AM | #168 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
This should be a NWO kitty cartoon.
NWO operative 1: OK we'll take an enormous risk in getting a remote control auto-pilot developed by Boeing and Honeywell. But it will be worth it. NWO operative 2: Yes, once we've managed to certify such a system taking hundreds of hours and dozens of engineers all we'll need to do is install it without anyone knowing. NWO operative 1: That's the easy bit, we can use the facilites at Boeing and get the experienced engineers to install something the customer hasn't specified. NWO operative 2: It will be great but I think we'll have to program it to fly poorly. We need to make at least one aircraft crash to show it was flown by poorly trained terrorists. NWO operative 1: Good one. But what about the pilots? They could radio the ground and blow the whole story of a remote auto-pilot. NWO operative 2: Simple, we'll have terrorists actually on the plane to disable the pilots! As ever truther show themselves up to be morons by ever increasing the plot's complexity. |
9th April 2016, 08:04 AM | #169 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
|
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
9th April 2016, 08:11 AM | #170 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Where do you get the delusional lies from? You have zero useful knowledge on 9/11 based on zero research.
The terrorists would not pass a check ride with the poor flying skills shown on 9/11. Flight 11 was the slowest, if he had gone faster, it means more damage, energy has a velocity squared term, physics and math, and why speed kills. Flight 175 failed to nail the target and he homed in, drifting with the wind, a proficient pilot would hold the WTC in a spot in the wind screen and not home in... You are void of any flight knowledge and make up lies, or are gullible and repeat failed 9/11 tag lines... Flight 77, the worse flying in history, speed control +-50 knots, that is a busted check ride; bank control +- 20 degree, busted. Flight 93, the same, erratic flight. You lied, there was no display of flying proficiency on 911 by the terrorists; Where you duped by 9/11 truth liars, and you repeat the lie without checking the facts. FDR for 77 and 93 prove you wrong. I don't know a single pilot who missed getting close enough to the runway to hit it, on their first try. The terrorists trained as pilots, a waste of time, they flew like idiots; and you were fooled by opinions based on BS. How long did it take you to say in your lane driving a car? LOL, you bring lies and speculation based on nonsense to a fact fight; unarmed with evidence, you bring woo. Got some evidence? No. |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
9th April 2016, 09:31 AM | #171 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
|
9th April 2016, 09:37 AM | #172 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
|
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts. |
|
9th April 2016, 10:50 AM | #173 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
I had the same Microsoft Flight Simulator game that the 9-11 Hijackers used to practice their routes.
I'm confident that that with a week's training I could take control of an airborne 767, turn it around, follow a compass heading, then follow a river to Manhattan, and crash the plane. In fact, I'm 100% confident I can crash a 767. What do I win? |
9th April 2016, 10:52 AM | #174 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
Truthers are incapable of learning. They just repeat the nonsense parrot fashion even after being debunked.
They just aren't that bright. I've yet to see one with any level of education past the age of 14 on any relevant subject yet they all think they know better than experts in dozens of fields. |
9th April 2016, 11:21 AM | #175 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Name one plane the system is currently on and able to be activated? lol
You link to a blog, where BS rules and 9/11 truth nuts are covered as if they were sane. The article has some insane claims from nuts in 9/11 truth. You linked to a blog of woo, BS, and assorted nonsense. No truth, BS about a system which was not used on 911. You failed to answer how the system could hit a 200 foot target on 9/11 in your fantasy version? Are there more details, or is the speculation limited to saying the system can be built, it was remote control. Is it a shallow no detail fantasy, or is full of details. |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
9th April 2016, 03:29 PM | #176 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
You are so quick to knee-jerk react with your own preformed opinions that you do no longer grasp the meaning of the words in front of you.
To any 'normal' reader, it is obvious from the subject of "uninterruptible auto pilot" that I did not mean the terrorists were "proficient pilots", as they were not the ones piloting the planes. They only had to control the cockpits. |
9th April 2016, 03:35 PM | #177 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
9th April 2016, 04:30 PM | #178 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
Did every hijacker in command of each aircraft at the time of the crash have a commercial pilot's license? How can we be certain who was in command at the time of each crash? Are we certain that each hijacker was certified to fly the aircraft they were in when it crashed? Are we certain that each hijacker who was actually in command of the aircraft at the time of the impact was actually certified in that aircraft. If so, who did the certification?
|
9th April 2016, 05:53 PM | #179 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
It doesn't actually matter
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/my...ng-experience/ Having a basic understanding of the cockpit instruments will allow you to do what was required. They had more than that. One person on each flight had at least private pilot's licence, three had commercial ones (Atta, Al-Shehhi, and Hanjour) and at least three of them spend time in Jet Simulators and Jet Training, two of them clocking up hundreds of hours on a 727 simulator. The fact that they had a trained pilot on board each aircraft would certainly indicate that was the person that was to fly. It would seem unusual not to do so. - Mohamed Atta (AA Flight 11) earned his private pilot certificate in September, 2000. In November 2000, Atta earned his instrument rating, and then a commercial pilot's license in December from the Federal Aviation Administration. Atta continued with flight training, including solo flights and simulator time. On December 22, Atta and Shehhi applied to Eagle International for large jet and simulator training for McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and Boeing 737–300 models. On December 29 and 30, Atta and Marwan went to the Opa-locka Airport where they practiced on a Boeing 727 simulator, and they obtained Boeing 767 simulator training from Pan Am International on December 31. Atta purchased flight deck videos for Boeing 747–200, Boeing 757–200, Airbus A320 and Boeing 767-300ER models via mail-order from Sporty's Pilot Shop in Batavia, Ohio in November and December 2000 - Marwan Al-Shehhi (UA Flight 175) was with Atta and they received their licences at the same time. They both logged hundreds of hours simulator time in 727 simulators as above. - Ziad Jarrah (UA Flight 93) had obtained his license to fly small aircraft in August 2000, and began training to fly large jets later that year. He was considered the best of the pilots by trainers, but failed to obtain his commercial licence because he returned home and didn't complete it. - Hani Hanjour (AA Flight 77) gained his FAA commercial pilot certificate in April 1999, getting a "satisfactory" rating from the examiner. He is generally accepted as the worst of the pilots, though he had his licence before joining Al Qaeda. Part of the reason for his radicalization was he inability to get a commercial pilot job with Saudi Airlines. The simple fact of the matter is, people with zero flight experience can do what they did when given a basic knowledge of the instruments that keep them airbourne (speed, artificial horizon, and heading.) All four of these guys had a lot more then a "basic" knowledge of how to fly these planes. |
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
9th April 2016, 06:02 PM | #180 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
Yes it does. If you make a claim, make sure it's accurate. What, you can do it to me, but I can't do it to you?
I'm sorry you did all that research for nothing. The error in the statement in question is harmless. That was not my point. A skeptic made a claim, and I knew it was wrong. If you expect me to be 100 percent accurate with every claim I make, I expect the same from you. |
9th April 2016, 06:05 PM | #181 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
Were your realism settings set on 100 percent? Anyone can make a sim plane do just about anything if realism is set to 0.
Can you perform the same maneuver into the Pentagon at the same speed? Prove it. Set your realism to high and record your results. You only get one try. |
9th April 2016, 06:17 PM | #182 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
It is easy to hit a 900 foot wide building. Thus, again you have no flight ops experience, or knowledge useful for the flight ops of 911; aka zero useful information, like in physics. 100 percent wrong...
The big blue marble is the Real Horizon... The only instrument you need is the earth as your ADI. I agree, I have flown kids in planes who could aim the plane with ease, and a 767/757 is easier to fly than most. |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
9th April 2016, 06:58 PM | #183 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,051
|
This was for another thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvbGiuKbmGM&t=46m55s Notice that they need a chase plane flying right along side to steer the 727 and they still land 1000 ft. from their established runway. They did manage to stick the landing i.e. they wanted it to break in half on impact. |
9th April 2016, 07:01 PM | #184 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
In 2001, it was all accurate as possible, something you don't seem to know. This was 15 years ago when computer sims were still mostly a hobbyist's realm, and the program required you to fly the planes.
Actually called Flight Simulator 2000, the program allowed you to fly into 20,000 real-world airports with accurate topography that included a realistic modeling of Manhattan's skyline. And yes, you could fly the plane into the Twin Tower of your choice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...ight_Simulator After the 2000 Flight Simulator was found in the hijacker's possessions Microsoft altered the program so that the user could no longer fly planes into buildings. Source: http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/ptech/0...ft.flight.sim/ http://windowsitpro.com/windows-serv...st-controversy Now I can't tell you what the real planes can or can't do, Beachnut flew heavies in the real world, but I can tell you what the program did. You could fly your jet of choice into the landmark of your choice at will. The cockpit alarms would go off, and the automated voice would tell you to pull up, but didn't take control away from the pilot. When I was a kid I had a poster of a 747's cockpit showing the control dials, and all the knobs and switches. I could be wrong but I think that once a plane is already in the air, all you need to know is how to read the compass, and know where the altimeter, and air-speed indicator are located. From there you follow a compass heading, or if you're a hack like Atta you follow the Hudson River to your target. The thing about the WTC was that they stood out, were large, and easy to hit. Any other obvious facts that you need explained for you today? |
9th April 2016, 07:11 PM | #185 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
I'm not sure you need a certification to crash a specific aircraft type. Might be hard getting through airport checkpoints if you had that card on you.
|
9th April 2016, 07:24 PM | #186 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
9th April 2016, 07:31 PM | #187 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
How do you know it wasn't accurate?
As for "did all that research for nothing" this is common knowledge to most people here and has been for quite sometime, do try to keep up. Better yet please use the search function before posting such drivel again. The lurkers are watching. |
9th April 2016, 07:32 PM | #188 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
|
9th April 2016, 07:44 PM | #189 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
OK. I re-read your posts and you said you could fly a 767 into a building (presumably one of the WTC buildings).
What I meant to ask was if you could practice for a week and fly a 757 into the Pentagon using a similar flight path the real 757 took. I admit I have tried this using FS. I only tried once, but I did it with easy realism and I did not even come close to hitting the building. Remember, the hijackers only got one shot. This really does not prove anything, so I'm not going to really debate it. I think if there is anything to get out of this is that the real-world task was much harder than people think. Unfortunately, that fact does not prove much, if anything at all. |
9th April 2016, 09:09 PM | #190 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Yes I could. You could too with practice and the same training Hani Hanjour had. His mistake was starting his dive too early and too shallow. I would have come in steep (45 to 60 degree angle) to get a better impact area,or as close to straight down as possible like the Kamikaze pilots on WWII. The Pentagon is a big, fat target, so why get fancy?
|
9th April 2016, 09:28 PM | #191 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
9th April 2016, 09:42 PM | #192 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
|
There is a BBC documentary called Conspiracy Theory Road Trip where they take 5 truthers to meet experts and witnesses etc. 1 of them changed their mind. One of the experts was a flight expert any they showed them exactly how easy it is to fly a plane into a building.
|
9th April 2016, 10:31 PM | #193 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
No, the statement was likely true, since there was one pilot on board for each plane, the great likelihood is that they were the ones at the controls, but if they were directing one of the others from the co-pilot seat, what does it matter?
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
10th April 2016, 02:42 AM | #194 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
10th April 2016, 02:45 AM | #195 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
10th April 2016, 06:37 AM | #196 |
Hasbarian NWO Templar Cattle
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: The Intergalatic Solar System!
Posts: 1,692
|
After reading your post, I actually wanted to see if I could find some episodes from this, since it sounds interesting seeing a CTer regain his senses. I came across this video on Dailymotion:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jlcfz The uploader is a twoofer who claims that this episode wasn't shown on TV. was it? If so, what was the real reason (don't know if you've seen this one)? This twoofer says: "This is the Premier episode of Conspiracy Road Trip on the BBC released in October 2011. Yet for some reason it has been removed from the BBC website, the site only lists the other 3 episodes that were produced. It could be due to the controversy over editing the subjects dialogue as one member took to the net to protest the episode. But we all know that the media lies. but why was this video erased from the internet? All other videos of the show are on youtube, why not this one? Watch download and enjoy." I'm only 5 min. in this episode, but I don't think that "editing the dialogues" would be the real reason (I honestly don't see why they would edit them, unless the CTers were acting like ******** during the show.). |
__________________
"Bravery Is Not A Function Of Firepower." - JC Denton "And belief in conspiracy theories is not the function of a higher intellect." - BStrong |
|
10th April 2016, 09:37 AM | #197 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
You have no idea what the flight path was.
Why would anyone try to fly as poorly as Hani did when all they have to do is hit the Pentagon. Saying you can't hit the Pentagon, you can't fly as bad as the murderers on 9/11, is really sad. You admit you can't do what a failed terrorist did. You can't fly FS to hit the Pentagon, the biggest target of 9/11, over 900 feet wide, and yet Hani was able to land a small plane on a 40 foot wide runway... I would not publish you can't do what a failed suicidal terrorists did. 900 feet wide and you missed? My daughters, in FS, all hit the WTC, a 200 foot wide target with ease. I have kids who never flew, take a KC-135 simulator and put it on a 150 foot wide runway, first time, no training. On 9/11 we have four pilots who had trained for years, and they took 4 of the best flying jets Boeing has ever made and crashed them; they showed no amazing flight skills, they were suicide idiots. I hate simulator and find real world is easier than the simulator - you can't debate this topic, you have no experience, zero knowledge of flight practices. In addition; you have no incentive to fly FS into the Pentagon, you seem to support the idiotic claims of 9/11 truth on flight and you failed to support one of them with evidence. Hani crashed into the Pentagon, he was only 40 feet from hitting the highway next to the Pentagon. He also was pulling 2gs at the end in an erratic pitch and bank control failed flying feat which 9/11 truth idiot pilots claim was some fantastic maneuver; why does 9/11 truth lie and fail to use the FDR to see the failed flying of a murderers - and you can't fly to hit what Hani hit. You can't fly as good or bad as a failed terrorist on his first and last flight on a 757. I would not need a week to practice. On my first flight in a KC-135, with less time in smaller planes than the terrorists, I landed perfectly, exactly on center-line of a 150 wide runway, on speed, in the correct attitude, wings-level, etc. Even pilots who washed out of pilot training, could hit the runway... but hitting stuff is not what being a pilot is about. My daughter first time hit the WTC, 200 foot wide, in FS, no previous flight training; you can't hit 900 foot wide target... BTW, it is easier to fly the real plane than the simulator; the real plane is really flying, not a model of flight; and you know 9/11 truth has zero respect for models... You can't hit the biggest target on 9/11 in the safety of being at a computer. Zero useful flight skills; how can you land on a 150 foot or 40 foot wide runway if you can't hit 900 foot wide target? |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
10th April 2016, 11:52 AM | #198 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
I raised the BS flag. and... and your played the projection card.
BS, how do the MIB know they terrorists ...lol, that is dumber than dirt. Control the cockpits? You failed to grasp the meaning of your post. You failed to grasp this is a BS point made; post of BS and failed to realize it? Plus the speculation is based on fantasy and bias. There was zero display of flying proficiency. Flight 11, hit the WTC, as if the pilot was asleep, looked like a normal pattern. Flight 175, no proficiency shown, actually you can see Flight 175 home into the WTC, and not accounting for wind drift, not flight proficient. Flight 175 was risking lose of control or aircraft damage by going too fast, at the upper limit or over the limit the plane was designed to be flutter free - again, not a display of flying proficiency... Flight 77, the worse flying I have seen, I studied the FDR, and it show poor flying skills; It is the opposite of surprising display of flying proficiency. Flight 93, erratic flying into the ground upside down at 40 degrees nose low, as if a crazy person was flying the jet; again, the opposite of surprising display of flying proficiency. What pilot risks pulling nearly 4gs in an airliner... not flying proficiency - this is what you missed, as you make up the failed claim. Total BS of people putting on a flight system on Four jets, from two airlines. One of the dumbest fantasies around, the remote control of four stock aircraft. And the next is where it fails, as you make up a lie about the flying on 9/11, which is the opposite of what happened. It was display of bad flying. Your claim of remote control, which accounts for something that was not displayed on 9/11. Remote control is based on shallow, zero knowledge of what happened. Who and how many did the fantasy remote control? How much does it cost to modify four planes and make them look stock? This is BS, and leaves you with nothing to support the remote control; as shown on the FDRs, the final part of flight for 77 and 93, hand flown, poorly. Ignore reality, and make up fantasy of remote control, mock those murdered by 19 failed humans supported by UBL. |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
10th April 2016, 12:18 PM | #199 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
|
If it was never shown on TV, why do so many people have copies of it they have uploaded to the internet? That's pretty ridiculous. It's still on the bbc website, shows when it was last shown
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014gpjx It's not listed with the other 3, those were last shown merely for a year longer. Wow, big conspiracy... I can think of one top reason they didn't show it as long that's better than one of the truthers weren't happy with their portrayal... that all of the experts and witnesses were harassed to an obscene level that they weren't expecting or capable of dealing with. They of course are all actors and government insiders and need to be trolled, including the woman whose son called her from one of the planes to say goodbye. I know the truther that changed his mind was trolled in obscene ways I'm not willing to poison your mind with, it involved things that people sent his mother. So, I'm guessing that all of the participants received some serious stuff in one way or the other. They still showed it for a few months... |
10th April 2016, 12:19 PM | #200 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,042
|
Let me get this straight.
You think the Hijackers took over the aircraft but it was controlled and crashed by remote control? |
Thread Tools | |
|
|