North Tower Exploding on 9-11

[rockdrummer]

ok... who in this thread REALLY thinks that 9/11 was a conspiracy? come on people... This is reminicent of the Cloggy conspiracy thread about the same thing and ALL of the claims of conspiracy have been debunked. Stop kicking the dead horse and let those poor souls rest in peace.

 

[ExR]

ok... who in this thread REALLY thinks that 9/11 was a conspiracy? come on people... This is reminicent of the Cloggy conspiracy thread about the same thing and ALL of the claims of conspiracy have been debunked. Stop kicking the dead horse and let those poor souls rest in peace.

Certainly not me. I am tired of arguing with people who believe in these conspiracy theories, whether it be online or in real life with friends. The only reason I do it is because I like to help by educating people on the matter, but that doesn't always seem to work!

 

[rockdrummer]

Certainly not me. I am tired of arguing with people who believe in these conspiracy theories, whether it be online or in real life with friends. The only reason I do it is because I like to help by educating people on the matter, but that doesn't always seem to work!

Yes there are some people that just don't notice the massive pink elephant sitting in the room.

 

[Beowulf]

It's funny how you say it's admirable considering you clearly haven't even read more than the first two pages. Had you read it in its entirety, you would have noticed that all of the conspiracy arguments were in fact debunked within the document itself!!! (Refer to the text in bold within the actual report) The counter arguments are in-line with everything I said. I don't see why I should have bothered to read all 13 pages when you clearly haven't even read the first 2. I agree entirely with the counter arguments provided within the document you supplied. Thanks for saving me the effort of having to write a counter argument!

Perhaps you should actually bother to read it yourself though. The person who debunked these false conspiracy theories explained it much better than I could have done.




You're getting confused with terminology here. Yes, one may find out flight schedules in advance. Some flight schedules have been operating consistently for many years. I.e. there's a daily flight with British Airways from LHR to JFK. (for example) Anyone can obtain that information. What I think you're actually referring to here is the actual flight plan itself. (not the same as a flight schedule) An IFR flight plan consists of waypoints which the plane intends to fly to. The waypoints collectively make up a "route". Sure, flight plans differ from flight to flight (operating on the same schedule) due to restrictions & weather. However, they will often be very similar in the sense that they won't usually deviate significantly, especially for shorter flights.

Here's what a short IFR flight plan looks like. You can see the waypoint names under "route"

Ummm, is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? I have indeed read the whole thing and understand it perfectly. It totally debunks your claim that amateur pilots could successfully have flown the airliners into their targets. Ho hum. I will let others be the judge of that. Have a nice day.

 

[Beowulf]

Certainly not me. I am tired of arguing with people who believe in these conspiracy theories, whether it be online or in real life with friends. The only reason I do it is because I like to help by educating people on the matter, but that doesn't always seem to work!

Because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[ExR]

Ummm, is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? I have indeed read the whole thing and understand it perfectly. It totally debunks your claim that amateur pilots could successfully have flown the airliners into their targets. Ho hum. I will let others be the judge of that. Have a nice day.

You say this even though the counter argument in that document (the one you provided) is contrary to your view. It doesn't debunk what I said at all. In fact, it's in-line with what I said and I agree with what was said entirely. Here's the conclusion of the counter-argument in that document.

"In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not
require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or
superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres
required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they
were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the
targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers
took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not
to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe
that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did."

And you claim that I'm the one with reading comprehension issues?

Because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Yet I'm sure I'm probably more qualified to judge than what you are. I work in the aviation industry. I've controlled real life 757 training simulators. (Not referring to PC flight simulators) and I hold a NPPL (pilot's licence). Not to mention the fact that I work with aviation professionals (including ATPL holders) on a daily basis!

 

[Jiro]

The counter argument in that document is contrary to your view. It doesn't debunk what I said at all. In fact, it's in-line with what I said and I agree with what was said entirely. Here's the conclusion of the counter-argument in that document.

"In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not
require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or
superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres
required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they
were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the
targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers
took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not
to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe
that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did."

And you claim that I'm the one with reading comprehension issues?



Yet I'm sure I'm probably more qualified to judge than what you are. I work in the aviation industry. I controlled real life 757 training simulators. (Not referring to PC simulators) and I hold a NPPL (pilot's licence). Not to mention the fact that I work with aviation professionals (including ATPL holders) on a daily basis!

so.... you're a commercial pilot?

 

[Beowulf]

You say this even though the counter argument in that document (the one you provided) is contrary to your view. It doesn't debunk what I said at all. In fact, it's in-line with what I said and I agree with what was said entirely. Here's the conclusion of the counter-argument in that document.

"In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not
require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or
superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres
required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they
were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the
targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers
took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not
to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe
that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did."

And you claim that I'm the one with reading comprehension issues?



Yet I'm sure I'm probably more qualified to judge than what you are. I work in the aviation industry. I've controlled real life 757 training simulators. (Not referring to PC flight simulators) and I hold a NPPL (pilot's licence). Not to mention the fact that I work with aviation professionals (including ATPL holders) on a daily basis!

Interesting conclusion from your reading. I will let others decide.

 

[ExR]

so.... you're a commercial pilot?

No but you don't need to be a commercial pilot in order to realise this, nor do you need to be a commercial pilot to be able to understand the evidence given. You just need a basic understanding of the fundamentals of flight and navigation concepts. Sure, to be able to safely fly a Boeing 767 in all conditions, it requires a lot of training. In fact, it requires a type rating on the respective aircraft. However, the BASIC flight principles are very similar to those used in a C172! The terrorists in this case did not need to utilise anything more than basic flight & navigational techniques in order to carry out this specific mission. If you don't believe me, then read that document. (The one that Beowulf claims to debunk my argument. Even though it's actually supporting my argument!)

If the knowledge obtained from a C172 at PPL level was completely irrelevant, then why is it that most airline pilots start learning to fly in the likes of small Cessna's? The fact is, much of the knowledge obtained from flying Cessna's (or other light GA aircraft) is used when flying larger aircraft. Like I said, the basic principles and techniques are the same, especially in Boeing aircraft. To reiterate, the terrorists only needed to use these basic techniques. Had it been necessary to use more advanced techniques, they may have been in trouble. Like I said before, there were many factors that may not have gone in their favour that day. They were certainly not guaranteed to pull off this mission successfully.

Your line of thinking is also flawed. By your logic, even a commercial pilot would not be qualified to judge, as they themselves would not be qualified to fly a 767! To fly a 767, you need to hold an ATPL (Airline Transport Pilot Licence) and this is above the level of a commercial pilot.

Sure, I am not sufficiently qualified to conduct/start an official investigation nor am I qualified to come to an official conclusion. However, I am qualified to understand and agree with the experts (The NTSB) who investigated and concluded the events which took place in this case. What they say makes perfect sense and I see no logical reason to disagree with them.

I cannot believe I'm saying this.

Interesting conclusion from your reading. I will let others decide.

Sorry, what I said was a little ambiguous. What I quoted was not a personal conclusion that I had written. (Even though I agree with it 100%) It's actually a quotation from the document which you provided. The same one which you believe "debunked" my argument.

 

[Jiro]

Your line of thinking is also flawed. By your logic, even a commercial pilot would not be qualified to judge, as they themselves would not be qualified to fly a 767! To fly a 767, you need to hold an ATPL (Airline Transport Pilot Licence) and this is above the level of a commercial pilot.

so... since flying 767 is above the level of a commercial pilot.... then that would means the hijackers can't even fly one.

 

[ExR]

so... since flying 767 is above the level of a commercial pilot.... then that would means the hijackers can't even fly one.

Jiro, if you had some training in a Cessna 172, you would be able to operate the control column (Yoke) along with the rudder in order to carry out basic manoeuvres, in any aircraft that uses a yoke/rudder, including a Boeing 767. That is not to say that a some training in a Cessna 172 will teach you everything you need to learn about flying a Boeing 767 safely, in all conditions. That couldn't be further from the truth. If the terrorists had to do anything that required advanced knowledge or skill, their plan would have been doomed. Unfortunately that was not the case.

Why? Here's just a few things:

- Qualified type rated pilots had already calculated the required fuel for the trip (advanced)
- Qualified type rated pilots had already input waypoints and intersections into the Flight Management System (advanced)
- Qualified type rated pilots calculated the required speed required to take off (advanced)
- Qualified type rated pilots taxied the aircraft to the runway threshold (advanced)
- Qualified type rated pilots set the flap position accordingly in order to generate enough lift prior to and after rotation. In order to do this, you need to know the mass of the aircraft + performance characteristics (advanced)

So effectively, the aircraft was already configured and set up. With that in mind, the real pilots had already done the bulk of the work here as you can see. A pilot who does not hold an ATPL or a type rating in the aircraft in question will struggle or may even find it impossible to do any of the above.

In contrast to what I said above, all the terrorists had to do was perform a series of relatively basic tasks. E.g. principles and techniques they would have learned at PPL level. That said, they would have needed to revise the 767 flight manual because some of the switches/knobs are in different places in the 767 flight deck. However, these are all things which would be intuitive to anyone with sufficient training at PPL level. I can attest to this, because I'm able to locate and identify many of the primary switches/knobs in a Boeing 757/767 even though I'm not qualified above NPPL level. Of course, I'm not claiming that I could successfully complete a flight in a 767 (refer to my list above for a few reasons as to why). However, in this case, the terrorists didn't even need to have the knowledge required to complete an entire flight in order to carry out their awful objective.

 

[Jiro]

Jiro, if you had some training in a Cessna 172, you would be able to operate the control column (Yoke) along with the rudder in order to carry out basic manoeuvres, in any aircraft that uses a yoke/rudder, including a Boeing 767. That is not to say that a few hours training in a Cessna 172 will teach you everything you need to learn about flying a Boeing 767 safely, in all conditions. That couldn't be further from the truth. If the terrorists had to do anything that required advanced knowledge or skill, their plan would have been doomed. Unfortunately that was not the case.

Why? Here's just a few things:

- Qualified pilots had already calculated the required fuel for the trip (advanced)
- Qualified pilots had already input waypoints and intersections into the Flight Management System (advanced)
- Qualified pilots calculated the required speed required to take off (advanced)
- Qualified pilots taxied the aircraft to the runway threshold (advanced)
- Qualified pilots set the flap position accordingly in order to generate enough lift prior to and after rotation. In order to do this, you need to know the mass of the aircraft + performance characteristics (advanced)

Therefore, the pilots had already done the bulk of the work here as you can see. A pilot who does not hold an ATPL or a type rating in the aircraft in question will struggle or may even find it impossible to do any of the above.

By comparison to what I said above, all the terrorists had to do was perform a series of relatively basic tasks. E.g. principles and techniques they would have learned at PPL level. That said, they would have needed to revise the 767 flight manual because some of the switches/knobs are in different places in the 767 flight deck. However, these are all things which would be intuitive to anyone with sufficient training at PPL. I'm an example of this, simply because I'm able to understand and locate them myself.

they were rated as incompetent buffoons.

 

[Beowulf]

they were rated as incompetent buffoons.

And they managed to hit their targets on the first try with such precision that it puts all other airliner pilots to shame? Yeah, riiiiight.

 

[kokonut]

 

[ExR]

they were rated as incompetent buffoons.

That's not quite true.

"Atta began flight training on July 7, 2000 and continued training nearly every day. By the end of July 2000, both Atta and Shehhi did solo flights. Atta earned his private pilot certificate in September, and then he and Shehhi decided to switch flight schools. Both enrolled at Jones Aviation in Sarasota; however, both took training there only for a brief time. They had problems following instructions and were both very upset when they failed their Stage 1 exam at Jones Aviation. They inquired about multi-engine planes and told the instructor that "they wanted to move quickly, because they had a job waiting in their country upon completion of their training in the U.S." In mid-October, Atta and Shehhi returned to Huffman Aviation to continue training. In November 2000, Atta earned his instrument rating, and then a commercial pilot's license in December from the Federal Aviation Administration.[15]"

Yes, it's from Wikipedia but it's backed up by sources, as indicated.

I've learned something today. Some of them were more qualified than I originally thought.

And they managed to hit their targets on the first try with such precision that it puts all other airliner pilots to shame? Yeah, riiiiight.

If you know how to use a yoke (covered at low level) and know how to set and maintain a heading (also covered at low level) then flying an aircraft into a large target in good weather conditions isn't the most difficult task in the world. If a private or commercial pilot can't do that, then only god knows how they got qualified! Sure, if it was an Airbus and not a Boeing, it could be different because Airbuses use a sidestick as opposed to a yoke. Though, I can't really comment further on that because I have no experience with Airbuses. (not that it really matters here anyway)

Just in case you're interested, I've attached two photos. One of the Cessna 172 cockpit, and one of a 767.

Cessna 172:

Boeing 767:

The outlines are a little rough but here's the key:

Green: Essential controls and/or instruments (See similarities?)

1. Yoke
2. Rudder
3. Instruments (Speed, Artificial Horizon indicator, Altitude, Heading etc etc)

Red: Essential controls and/or instruments (Requires some further study as it's not covered at PPL level)

4. MCP (Used to engage/disengage autopilot. Also used to set altitude, heading and air speed while auto pilot is engaged.)
5. Throttle quadrant. On the right of it, you will see the lever use to set the flap position.

Blue: Redundant controls and/or instruments (Functionality not needed/used for said case)

6. Radio stack. This is used for tuning into radio frequencies. It's also used for setting a Squawk code. (Unique identifier used by ATC)

7. EICAS displays. This shows things like the engine temperature, performance, thrust rating etc etc. Any reported problems appear on these screens too. While important, these are not directly needed for the purpose of changing altitude, setting & maintaining a heading or for manoeuvres.

8. This is a navigational display. It shows the same data as shown on number 3. Very useful as they provide enhanced clarity. (they're turned off in the photo) That said, the terrorists probably used the backup gauges (3) instead as that's what they would have been more familiar with.

Not shown: Overhead panel of 767 (Functionality not needed/used for said case)

 

[Beowulf]

Interesting, ExR. I am not a pilot, so I dunno. It has been a while, but I used to read material from the Pilots For 911 Truth organization. These are real airliner pilots who disagree with you. Just saying. *shrug*
I do not spend my time reading 911 material, in case you are wondering. I think it is all a moot point by now anyway. I think I know HOW it was accomplished, but I quit searching for the WHY, even though I think we are still feeling the effects of that day.
I think we can all agree to disagree. I cannot change your mind, nor you mine, so we will let it go at that.

 

[jillio]

Interesting conclusion from your reading. I will let others decide.

My decision: ExR's conclusion is erroneous.

 

[Jiro]

My decision: ExR's conclusion is erroneous.

yep. agreed.

here's why ExR's conclusion is erroneous - by his logic... anybody with a basic car driver education and training can drive an 18-wheeler truck and drive it from a hundred miles away... into NYC... and then smash it into WTC (or any other target) and detonate (suicide bombing).

that would be amazing... navigating an 18-wheelers with no experience or training at all in a very difficult traffic here.

 

[rockdrummer]

Ummm, is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? I have indeed read the whole thing and understand it perfectly. It totally debunks your claim that amateur pilots could successfully have flown the airliners into their targets. Ho hum. I will let others be the judge of that. Have a nice day.

So what are you suggesting? That the terrorists did not fly those planes into the towers?

 

[Jiro]

So what are you suggesting? That the terrorists did not fly those planes into the towers?

it's the terrorists for sure but the story that the government told us about them is fishy.