The Events of 9/11 From a Professional Pilot's point of view | |
C.K. Dexter Haven User ID: 76620454 Sweden 09/11/2018 11:13 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Thanks for speaking out. It's mind boggling to me that so many people still believe the official story without question. There are so many obvious deceptions. Thread: 911 Was an Inside Job |
Thoseaintcontrails User ID: 75247501 United States 09/11/2018 11:13 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | As some of my GLP family knows I have been a commercial pilot for 30 years now. I have been in aviation management for 25 of those years. Quoting: Capt Dan In 2001, I was Chief Pilot and Check Airman for a small charter airline (5 B737 aircraft) based in the western US. In September of that year I had just hired a new class of 8 pilots and, having already trained them in their basic indoc and ground portion of the airline training syllabus, had flown them to Phoenix for their simulator training. On the morning of Sep 11th I was in the middle of training session 3 with an upgrading Captain and a new-hire First Officer. We had come out of the simulator for our mid-session break to piss, have a cup of coffee and swap seats when we saw the pilots that were training in the other simulator (who were also on their break) huddled around a TV set in the briefing room. One of the pilots turned around and, with a solemn look, told us that an airplane had crashed into the World Trade Center. Behind him on the TV was the smoking tower with a frantic commentator rambling about whether or not it was terrorism. I won't bore you with the rest of the details, but suffice it to say that I knew that there would not be any new class of pilots hired. They knew it too. Because I (the airline) had already paid for the simulator time, and there was no way to fly everyone back home because all the air traffic was grounded, I decided to continue their training sessions for the rest of that week. I would then sign off their training and immediately furlough them - eventually hiring most of them back months later. The next day as we were finishing up the 4 hour simulator session #4, I positioned the aircraft virtually on the runway at Boston Logan airport. I told the crew that we were going to try an experiment. I asked the more experienced of the two; the upgrading captain, to take off, fly to New York City and hit one of the towers. This was a very well-qualified upgrading pilot that had thousands of flight hours and hundreds in the right seat of a 737. He took off and visually made his way to NY for the roughly 30 minute flight. In order not to waste time, I put the simulator on double-speed during the cruise portion. He then identified the twin towers - they are not hard to see - and headed straight for them... AND HE MISSED! He muttered something about how hard it was to line up on them and asked me to back him up so he could try again. And AGAIN he MISSED! After several attempts, he was able to hit one of them by slowing way down to almost landing speed - flaps and gear down. I subsequently tried the same exercise with all of the pilots and they all had trouble hitting such a narrow target at high speed. The new pilots didn't even come close. When they slowed way down, they were more successful but still commented on how challenging it was. Now, bear in mind, these were very experienced professional pilots. So tell me how did a bunch of Arabs with very little training perform such a feat? We all knew then that we were not being told the truth about the events of that day! I have since told this story to many people. I have had several radio interviews about my experience and help found Pilots for 911 Truth. Below is one of the interviews I gave a couple years later. Capt Dan I'm not a Computer Graphics expert, but from all the variables of 9/11, I fully believe the planes were CGI. Them showing an intact aluminum plane nose traveling completely through the steel tower was a smack in the face giveaway to anyone picking through all of the bs claims. Last Edited by Thoseaintcontrails on 09/11/2018 11:14 AM |
C.K. Dexter Haven User ID: 76620454 Sweden 09/11/2018 11:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'm not a Computer Graphics expert, but from all the variables of 9/11, I fully believe the planes were CGI. Them showing an intact aluminum plane nose traveling completely through the steel tower was a smack in the face giveaway to anyone picking through all of the bs claims. Quoting: Thoseaintcontrails That footage can be seen in this short clip of an interview with Trump. He knew something was fishy. He states that bombs would have been needed for the plane to pierce through the external steel skeleton the way they did. How could an aluminum nosecone possibly penetrate through the external skeleton, the core, and come out the other side intact? I don't like to pursue this theory too much though, because there are so many other easily provable anomalies that bring the whole thing into question. [link to youtu.be (secure)] |
Nobody_Nothing User ID: 75837095 United States 09/11/2018 11:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Thanks for speaking out. Quoting: C.K. Dexter Haven It's mind boggling to me that so many people still believe the official story without question. There are so many obvious deceptions. Thread: 911 Was an Inside Job I fly VFR and there’s no way a 757 on approach to DCA veered off course and hit the pentagon at that angle. You’re talking about a greyhound bus with wings, not a Ferrari |
Capt Dan (OP) User ID: 76922697 Thailand 09/11/2018 11:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Thanks for speaking out. Quoting: C.K. Dexter Haven It's mind boggling to me that so many people still believe the official story without question. There are so many obvious deceptions. Thread: 911 Was an Inside Job I fly VFR and there’s no way a 757 on approach to DCA veered off course and hit the pentagon at that angle. You’re talking about a greyhound bus with wings, not a Ferrari I was involved in the dissemination of the flight data recorder and radar info for the Pentagon event. I can tell you that it did not happen the way they say in the narrative. What really happened? We may never know. All I can tell you is that the official story is BS. |
Capt Dan (OP) User ID: 76922697 Thailand 09/11/2018 11:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | As some of my GLP family knows I have been a commercial pilot for 30 years now. I have been in aviation management for 25 of those years. Quoting: Capt Dan In 2001, I was Chief Pilot and Check Airman for a small charter airline (5 B737 aircraft) based in the western US. In September of that year I had just hired a new class of 8 pilots and, having already trained them in their basic indoc and ground portion of the airline training syllabus, had flown them to Phoenix for their simulator training. On the morning of Sep 11th I was in the middle of training session 3 with an upgrading Captain and a new-hire First Officer. We had come out of the simulator for our mid-session break to piss, have a cup of coffee and swap seats when we saw the pilots that were training in the other simulator (who were also on their break) huddled around a TV set in the briefing room. One of the pilots turned around and, with a solemn look, told us that an airplane had crashed into the World Trade Center. Behind him on the TV was the smoking tower with a frantic commentator rambling about whether or not it was terrorism. I won't bore you with the rest of the details, but suffice it to say that I knew that there would not be any new class of pilots hired. They knew it too. Because I (the airline) had already paid for the simulator time, and there was no way to fly everyone back home because all the air traffic was grounded, I decided to continue their training sessions for the rest of that week. I would then sign off their training and immediately furlough them - eventually hiring most of them back months later. The next day as we were finishing up the 4 hour simulator session #4, I positioned the aircraft virtually on the runway at Boston Logan airport. I told the crew that we were going to try an experiment. I asked the more experienced of the two; the upgrading captain, to take off, fly to New York City and hit one of the towers. This was a very well-qualified upgrading pilot that had thousands of flight hours and hundreds in the right seat of a 737. He took off and visually made his way to NY for the roughly 30 minute flight. In order not to waste time, I put the simulator on double-speed during the cruise portion. He then identified the twin towers - they are not hard to see - and headed straight for them... AND HE MISSED! He muttered something about how hard it was to line up on them and asked me to back him up so he could try again. And AGAIN he MISSED! After several attempts, he was able to hit one of them by slowing way down to almost landing speed - flaps and gear down. I subsequently tried the same exercise with all of the pilots and they all had trouble hitting such a narrow target at high speed. The new pilots didn't even come close. When they slowed way down, they were more successful but still commented on how challenging it was. Now, bear in mind, these were very experienced professional pilots. So tell me how did a bunch of Arabs with very little training perform such a feat? We all knew then that we were not being told the truth about the events of that day! I have since told this story to many people. I have had several radio interviews about my experience and help found Pilots for 911 Truth. Below is one of the interviews I gave a couple years later. Capt Dan I'm not a Computer Graphics expert, but from all the variables of 9/11, I fully believe the planes were CGI. Them showing an intact aluminum plane nose traveling completely through the steel tower was a smack in the face giveaway to anyone picking through all of the bs claims. It could have been CGI. The problem with that theory is that there are many algorithms that the software uses when a digital camera films an object. In effect (no pun intended) digital effects are helping the camera film and record the data faster. This may account for the anomalies in the camera footage in the "no plane" theory. I am not saying that there were planes. Just that there could have been planes. But if there were planes, they were definitely NOT being piloted by who they say they were... |
Billy Ringo User ID: 75162463 United States 09/11/2018 11:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Pilots land on a small strip of runway on virtually every landing..and most of those are manual--not autoland or computer assisted. Sorry, but I'm not buying this, have been on WAY too many flights where they drop the plane right in the middle of the landing strip. Calling BS on this one. I am Billy Ringo and I approve of this message. Paid for by belligerent derelicts for Ringo. |
Thoseaintcontrails User ID: 75247501 United States 09/11/2018 12:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'm not a Computer Graphics expert, but from all the variables of 9/11, I fully believe the planes were CGI. Them showing an intact aluminum plane nose traveling completely through the steel tower was a smack in the face giveaway to anyone picking through all of the bs claims. Quoting: Thoseaintcontrails That footage can be seen in this short clip of an interview with Trump. He knew something was fishy. He states that bombs would have been needed for the plane to pierce through the external steel skeleton the way they did. How could an aluminum nosecone possibly penetrate through the external skeleton, the core, and come out the other side intact? I don't like to pursue this theory too much though, because there are so many other easily provable anomalies that bring the whole thing into question. [link to youtu.be (secure)] What is easily provable? They used obvious crisis actors, present no decent video of the Pentagon even though there were probably at least 100 cameras that should have caught a plane. If they can fake planes, they can fake victims and anything else. They have an obvious trend of faking disasters. |
Didyabringyabongalong User ID: 74912760 Australia 09/11/2018 12:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ....After several attempts, he was able to hit one of them by slowing way down to almost landing speed - flaps and gear down. I subsequently tried the same exercise with all of the pilots and they all had trouble hitting such a narrow target at high speed. Pilots land on a small strip of runway on virtually every landing..and most of those are manual--not autoland or computer assisted. Quoting: Billy Ringo Sorry, but I'm not buying this, have been on WAY too many flights where they drop the plane right in the middle of the landing strip. Calling BS on this one. . Is reality based on geometry? [link to youtu.be (secure)] [link to youtu.be (secure)] [link to youtu.be (secure)] [link to youtu.be (secure)] The Fingerspitzengefühl is strong with you, but you are not a Jedi yet. |
MissCleo User ID: 76541118 United States 09/11/2018 12:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
MissCleo User ID: 76541118 United States 09/11/2018 12:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Pilots land on a small strip of runway on virtually every landing..and most of those are manual--not autoland or computer assisted. Quoting: Billy Ringo Sorry, but I'm not buying this, have been on WAY too many flights where they drop the plane right in the middle of the landing strip. Calling BS on this one. even on calm days the nose is all over the place, it's not precise. |
Capt Dan (OP) User ID: 76922697 Thailand 09/11/2018 12:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Pilots land on a small strip of runway on virtually every landing..and most of those are manual--not autoland or computer assisted. Quoting: Billy Ringo Sorry, but I'm not buying this, have been on WAY too many flights where they drop the plane right in the middle of the landing strip. Calling BS on this one. Very good observation. And if the planes had hit at landing speeds you would have been correct. The problem is, at the speeds we are told that they were traveling it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to do. And, at those speeds the airplane would have been so unstable that it would have broken apart. We are talking speeds that exceed the red line VMO for the airframe. The engines would have flamed out at those speeds. The stick shaker would have been going off. The airplane would have gone into such flutter that it would have broken up. Don't believe me? Do some research in aerodynamics. I am just a pilot, not an aeronautical engineer but I do understand airliners and flying them. 14000 hours as a captain gives me a perspective that most people don't have... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 74859192 Sweden 09/11/2018 12:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The planes were CGI. I'm afraid I'm useless at keeping track of links, so I can't point you to the evidence. But I can tell you there's a video taken from a helicopter that show the towers at a wide angle, then zooms in, and then the plane enters the frame and hits the tower. The thing is, there was no plane in the zoomed out part of the clip, which it would have to be if the plane was real! Another thing is that a lot of people who were there report that they didn't see the planes personally, but someone nearby yelled out "OMG, a plane just hit the tower!" or something like that. Seems they had hired people to plant the idea so people would think they saw it, or at least not question those who say they did. |
Capt Dan (OP) User ID: 76922697 Thailand 09/11/2018 12:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Capt Dan, Quoting: MissCleo But if computers with flight simulators were onboard with Atta could they be connected into the planes system to direct them into the buildings? Thanks, Miss Cleo Good question Miss Cleo, there is a possibility that the planes were flown by remote control. To me, this is the best theory. Unmanned drone technology of the time would have allowed it. |
Osti User ID: 76471059 France 09/11/2018 12:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The simple reason people still believe the original narrative is simple... Sheep gonna sheep. Last Edited by Osti on 09/11/2018 12:17 PM |
Capt Dan (OP) User ID: 76922697 Thailand 09/11/2018 12:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The planes were CGI. Quoting: The Monk I'm afraid I'm useless at keeping track of links, so I can't point you to the evidence. But I can tell you there's a video taken from a helicopter that show the towers at a wide angle, then zooms in, and then the plane enters the frame and hits the tower. The thing is, there was no plane in the zoomed out part of the clip, which it would have to be if the plane was real! Another thing is that a lot of people who were there report that they didn't see the planes personally, but someone nearby yelled out "OMG, a plane just hit the tower!" or something like that. Seems they had hired people to plant the idea so people would think they saw it, or at least not question those who say they did. Very well could be. I will need to do some more research on it. All I know is that it was not as we were told. |
C.K. Dexter Haven User ID: 76620454 Sweden 09/11/2018 12:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'm not a Computer Graphics expert, but from all the variables of 9/11, I fully believe the planes were CGI. Them showing an intact aluminum plane nose traveling completely through the steel tower was a smack in the face giveaway to anyone picking through all of the bs claims. Quoting: Thoseaintcontrails That footage can be seen in this short clip of an interview with Trump. He knew something was fishy. He states that bombs would have been needed for the plane to pierce through the external steel skeleton the way they did. How could an aluminum nosecone possibly penetrate through the external skeleton, the core, and come out the other side intact? I don't like to pursue this theory too much though, because there are so many other easily provable anomalies that bring the whole thing into question. [link to youtu.be (secure)] What is easily provable? They used obvious crisis actors, present no decent video of the Pentagon even though there were probably at least 100 cameras that should have caught a plane. If they can fake planes, they can fake victims and anything else. They have an obvious trend of faking disasters. No plane at the Pentagon. No plane in that hole in Shanksville. They reported the collapse of 7 World Trade at least 20 minutes before it collapsed straight down into it's own footprint in an obvious controlled demolition. Molten steel, strangely eroded and melted beams. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 41173011 United States 09/11/2018 12:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I have also flown commercial from 1979 until 2015. and how do your pilots make the threshold of the runway if they can't hit a building. You must have some very poor pilots. That being said it may still be very difficult for a novice to do it, but on the other hand a blind squirrel even gets a nut now and then |
Didyabringyabongalong User ID: 74912760 Australia 09/11/2018 12:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OP, Weren't the terrorists have meant to train in a light aircraft and prior to the attacks never flown in 767? I wouldn't expect it to be an easy transition. Thoughts? . Is reality based on geometry? [link to youtu.be (secure)] [link to youtu.be (secure)] [link to youtu.be (secure)] [link to youtu.be (secure)] The Fingerspitzengefühl is strong with you, but you are not a Jedi yet. |
joop User ID: 1562253 Netherlands 09/11/2018 12:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Capt Dan (OP) User ID: 76922697 Thailand 09/11/2018 12:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I have also flown commercial from 1979 until 2015. and how do your pilots make the threshold of the runway if they can't hit a building. You must have some very poor pilots. That being said it may still be very difficult for a novice to do it, but on the other hand a blind squirrel even gets a nut now and then Quoting: Homie B Honeydick Please re-read my description of events. AT HIGH SPEEDS the pilots couldn't hit is. They needed to SLOW to LANDING SPEEDS to do it. You are the second person that asked the same question. Maybe my account that I wrote is confusing? |
MissCleo User ID: 76541118 United States 09/11/2018 12:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Capt Dan, Quoting: MissCleo But if computers with flight simulators were onboard with Atta could they be connected into the planes system to direct them into the buildings? Thanks, Miss Cleo Good question Miss Cleo, there is a possibility that the planes were flown by remote control. To me, this is the best theory. Unmanned drone technology of the time would have allowed it. The MH370 was remote controlled on the ground, which was a breakthrough. Pilot had simulator in home with route to skirt radar and cell towers. Met with Imam and high ranking Indonesia Official before the flight. Atta and the other hijackers also met with Imam before 911, and they brought equipment onboard to take those planes on 911 and didn't actually take the pilot seat. Mastermind Kalid Sheik Mohammed got his masters in a US university, these guys weren't stupid and they were funded and supported operationally by the wealthiest family on earth with aspirations for global domination. These were not amateurs. But those aspirations remain today, and advancing. Only a matter of time before they pull off another simultaneous operation. Meanwhile they have been importing ground soldier immigrants for dirty work. How much has it cost to maintain security since 911 in airports and planes? Nothing will stop them if there "is a will there is a way" to cause destruction using planes again. It's the will toward destruction that is the danger and will remain until Islam is outlawed. |
Capt Dan (OP) User ID: 76922697 Thailand 09/11/2018 12:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OP, Weren't the terrorists have meant to train in a light aircraft and prior to the attacks never flown in 767? I wouldn't expect it to be an easy transition. Thoughts? Quoting: Didyabringyabongalong Yes. And they were so bad flying a Cessna 172 that the training centers wouldn't allow them to rent one after trying to get checked out by an instructor for solo. So how did two of those guys pull it off? And don't even get me started about the pentagon maneuvers! |
Billy Ringo User ID: 75162463 United States 09/11/2018 12:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Based on some quick research, the width of a large international runway is around 260 feet, the WTCs were 208 feet wide. So there isn't that much discrepancy between the two. However--based on Capt Dan's comments, the 911 planes were flying much faster than a normal landing---correct? If that's the case, then his analysis would make much more sense. However, I do know this---if your front landing gear hits first it doesn't make for a happy landing, as I experienced at LaGuardia a number of years ago as a passenger. I am Billy Ringo and I approve of this message. Paid for by belligerent derelicts for Ringo. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 41173011 United States 09/11/2018 12:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OP, Weren't the terrorists have meant to train in a light aircraft and prior to the attacks never flown in 767? I wouldn't expect it to be an easy transition. Thoughts? Quoting: Didyabringyabongalong It would not be....especially since they probably did not have or understand the weight and balance "sheet" and understand how that would affect the flight envelope of the aircraft with out ripping the wings off when making manuevers |
Thoseaintcontrails User ID: 75247501 United States 09/11/2018 12:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The planes were CGI. Quoting: The Monk I'm afraid I'm useless at keeping track of links, so I can't point you to the evidence. But I can tell you there's a video taken from a helicopter that show the towers at a wide angle, then zooms in, and then the plane enters the frame and hits the tower. The thing is, there was no plane in the zoomed out part of the clip, which it would have to be if the plane was real! Another thing is that a lot of people who were there report that they didn't see the planes personally, but someone nearby yelled out "OMG, a plane just hit the tower!" or something like that. Seems they had hired people to plant the idea so people would think they saw it, or at least not question those who say they did. Indeed. They took extreme measures to promote the plane hoax and try to keep it concealed. If everyone knew the planes were a hoax, it would reveal who organized everything and is in on the hoax. It also exposes the media as the propaganda tool that it is to sell the plane hoax to the world. Last Edited by Thoseaintcontrails on 09/11/2018 12:31 PM |
ElleMira User ID: 76494359 United States 09/11/2018 12:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Capt Dan (OP) User ID: 76922697 Thailand 09/11/2018 12:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The planes were CGI. Quoting: The Monk I'm afraid I'm useless at keeping track of links, so I can't point you to the evidence. But I can tell you there's a video taken from a helicopter that show the towers at a wide angle, then zooms in, and then the plane enters the frame and hits the tower. The thing is, there was no plane in the zoomed out part of the clip, which it would have to be if the plane was real! Another thing is that a lot of people who were there report that they didn't see the planes personally, but someone nearby yelled out "OMG, a plane just hit the tower!" or something like that. Seems they had hired people to plant the idea so people would think they saw it, or at least not question those who say they did. Indeed. They took extreme measures to promote the plane hoax and try to keep it concealed. If everyone knew the planes were a hoax, it would reveal who organized everything and is in on the hoax. It also exposes the media as the propaganda tool that it is to sell the plane hoax to the world. Believe none of what you read, and only half of what you see... |
MissCleo User ID: 76541118 United States 09/11/2018 12:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OP, Weren't the terrorists have meant to train in a light aircraft and prior to the attacks never flown in 767? I wouldn't expect it to be an easy transition. Thoughts? Quoting: Didyabringyabongalong Piping in about terrorist training. From a young age these guys train. Pan Am Lockerbie (1980's) was let out of jail for cancer by Scotland, returned to Libya and trained a new generation of terrorists who have been training since 2009. The blind Santa Shiek pulled off the first WTC bombing in 1993, wasn't big enough to be called "the Awakening". He was the Imam connected to the recent compound in New Mexico training kids to shoot up schools. And Linda Sarsour who is organizing protests all around the US. This movement to destroy America will not stop. There are only 4 choices for people who want to kill us: they kill us, they come back to finish us off, they give up (not likely), they are detered by a stronger force against them. Again, so if the desire to kill us is ever present yes, they will train on light aircraft. See recent Toronto incident... which had a direct response from a foreign government, will explain in PM if you like. |
LunaFlora User ID: 76861900 Canada 09/11/2018 12:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |