9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph?

[MikeC]

767 avionics was originally designed in the 1970's or thereabouts, and is not designed for remote control or autonomous operations at all.

It is designed to present a human pilot with the information required to fly the aeroplane so most of it is measurement and information presentation.

The flying part of it is designed to follow fairly simple courses as input by a pilot in one way or another - manually, via the autopilot, or via the FMS.

So no, it is not "far more sophisticated than the one on a cruise missile".

 

[xenon]

Even for a crime of the century... I think it better fits in a science fiction novel than the confines of our reality.

And yes, airlines tail swap their flights all the time. There is no guarantee that the hijackers would be assured they get on the correctly 'modified' aircraft. You can say all the avionics of the era being modified, but it's pretty far down the likeliness scale here. The 757/767 are about 1980s technology, so it's not like it's particularly smart. The autopilot too is made for smooth flying from the 'mechanical' sense, and the only practical application here that I can think of is assuming that it can prevent the aircraft from doing violent deviations with pinpoint accuracy, which it probably can't do.

Boeing Jets have been capable of remote piloting since at least 1984 (probably a few years before, if 84 is when the tech was publicly displayed)

On the morning of December 1, 1984, the test aircraft (Boeing 720) took off from Edwards Air Force Base, California, made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2,300 feet (700 m). The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. All fuel tanks were filled with a total of 76,000 pounds (34,000 kg) of AMK and all engines ran from start-up to impact (the flight time was 9 minutes) on the modified Jet-A. It then began a descent-to-landing along the roughly 3.8-degree glideslope to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake, with the landing gear remaining retracted.

Passing the decision height of 150 feet (46 m) above ground level (AGL), the aircraft turned slightly to the right of the desired path. The aircraft entered into a situation known as a Dutch Roll. Slightly above that decision point at which the pilot was to execute a "go-around", there appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the center-line of the runway. The aircraft was below the glideslope and below the desired airspeed. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the ground, left wing low, at full throttle, with the aircraft nose pointing to the left of the center-line.

It was planned that the aircraft would land wings-level, with the throttles set to idle, and exactly on the center-line during the CID, thus allowing the fuselage to remain intact as the wings were sliced open by eight posts cemented into the runway (called "Rhinos" due to the shape of the "horns" welded onto the posts). The Boeing 720 landed askew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration
​

Just imagine how much better that remote tech is now, and was in 2000, than when it was first displayed in 1984

 

[Rico]

Boeing Jets have been capable of remote piloting since at least 1984 (probably a few years before, if 84 is when the tech was publicly displayed)

On the morning of December 1, 1984, the test aircraft (Boeing 720) took off from Edwards Air Force Base, California, made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2,300 feet (700 m). The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. All fuel tanks were filled with a total of 76,000 pounds (34,000 kg) of AMK and all engines ran from start-up to impact (the flight time was 9 minutes) on the modified Jet-A. It then began a descent-to-landing along the roughly 3.8-degree glideslope to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake, with the landing gear remaining retracted.

Passing the decision height of 150 feet (46 m) above ground level (AGL), the aircraft turned slightly to the right of the desired path. The aircraft entered into a situation known as a Dutch Roll. Slightly above that decision point at which the pilot was to execute a "go-around", there appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the center-line of the runway. The aircraft was below the glideslope and below the desired airspeed. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the ground, left wing low, at full throttle, with the aircraft nose pointing to the left of the center-line.

It was planned that the aircraft would land wings-level, with the throttles set to idle, and exactly on the center-line during the CID, thus allowing the fuselage to remain intact as the wings were sliced open by eight posts cemented into the runway (called "Rhinos" due to the shape of the "horns" welded onto the posts). The Boeing 720 landed askew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration
​

Just imagine how much better that remote tech is now, and was in 2000, than when it was first displayed in 1984

The discussion isn't so much about remote controlling an aircraft here as it is to modifying an already made civilian jetliner to do something that is deemed impossible by a human being. Any pilot who has ever used an autopilot would know the thing lags behind a bit. The autopilot on a 767/757 specifically isn't designed to replace the human being, it is designed to assist. It is accurate, but it's not there to make snap control movements. It's easier for a human pilot to carry out the task at hand.

 

[MikeC]

"Even Robert Ayling, former boss of British Airways, got in on the act and "... suggested in the Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack... "

If you go to the actual article from the Economist that is quoted you will see that Ayling was talking about possibilities for the future to counteract hijacking:

If spotting terrorists on the ground is so hard, what can be done to make aircraft harder to hijack in the air? Again, there has been no shortage of suggestions. Robert Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in the Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack. The problem with this, says Mr Taylor, is that remote-control systems might themselves open aircraft up to hijacking by malicious computer hackers.

He suggests instead that automated landing systems should be modified so that, in the event of a hijack, the pilot could order his aircraft to land itself, with no option to cancel the command.

Content from External Source

So presto - another example of inaccurate and deceptive quoting by a conspiracy theorist right off the bat.

 

[George B]

767 avionics was originally designed in the 1970's or thereabouts, and is not designed for remote control or autonomous operations at all.

It is designed to present a human pilot with the information required to fly the aeroplane so most of it is measurement and information presentation.

The flying part of it is designed to follow fairly simple courses as input by a pilot in one way or another - manually, via the autopilot, or via the FMS.

So no, it is not "far more sophisticated than the one on a cruise missile".

Remote In-Flight Course Changes Facilitated By 9/11 Model Aircraft Circa 2001

by Aidan Monaghan
August 25, 2009
911blogger.com
The capability to remotely transmit altered aircraft flight plan data via remote data link transmissions directly into Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft Flight Management Computers (FMCs) for use by aircraft auto-pilot functions, was technologically available circa 2001.


Developed in 1999 and technologically supported by the FANS-capable (Future Air Navigation System) Honeywell Pegasus Flight Management System (FMS) for Boeing 757s and 767s by 2000, Dynamic Airborne Reroute Procedure (DARP) technology enables aircraft course changes via modified flight plan waypoints remotely transmitted and installed into aircraft FMCs by VHF or SATCOM (satellite communications) transmission uplinks.


"Dynamic Rerouting, meaning the ability of controllers ... to change a filed routing once the flight is in progress ... "The new flight plan with all new waypoints goes into the data link to the comm satellite and is then downlinked into the FMSes of the individual aircraft," ... "And 'Wow,' say all the old pilots, 'Untouched by human hands!'" ... Our [dispatch] computer uplinks a route into the FMS that is identified as 'Route 2.' [You're already flying 'Route 1.']" [1]


http://www.911truth.org/article_for_printing.php?story=20090827134112250

Content from External Source

 

[MikeC]

Boeing Jets have been capable of remote piloting since at least 1984 (probably a few years before, if 84 is when the tech was publicly displayed)

Radio controlled aircraft have been around since WW2 - they used to try to fly explosive laden B-17 drones into targets using radio and primitive television - JFK's brother was killed in one when it blew up prematurely.

The ability to fly aircraft by remote control is, essentially, trivial.

Just imagine how much better that remote tech is now, and was in 2000, than when it was first displayed in 1984

Yep -and then coes the question - what is the actual evidence that anything was ACTUALLY used to do so?

The answer is also trivial: There is none beyond uninformed speculation such ash been repeatedly debunked in this thread.

 

[George B]

If you go to the actual article from the Economist that is quoted you will see that Ayling was talking about possibilities for the future to counteract hijacking:

If spotting terrorists on the ground is so hard, what can be done to make aircraft harder to hijack in the air? Again, there has been no shortage of suggestions. Robert Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in the Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack. The problem with this, says Mr Taylor, is that remote-control systems might themselves open aircraft up to hijacking by malicious computer hackers.

He suggests instead that automated landing systems should be modified so that, in the event of a hijack, the pilot could order his aircraft to land itself, with no option to cancel the command.

Content from External Source

So presto - another example of inaccurate and deceptive quoting by a conspiracy theorist right off the bat.

I never presented it as something that was available to public use at the time of 911 or for that matter presently. . . .that doesn't mean it did not exist then or that is doesn't exist today. . . .

 

[George B]

The discussion isn't so much about remote controlling an aircraft here as it is to modifying an already made civilian jetliner to do something that is deemed impossible by a human being. Any pilot who has ever used an autopilot would know the thing lags behind a bit. The autopilot on a 767/757 specifically isn't designed to replace the human being, it is designed to assist. It is accurate, but it's not there to make snap control movements. It's easier for a human pilot to carry out the task at hand.

I am not saying it is not possible for a human being. . . .I am saying it was used to insure the inexperienced humans in the loop were ale to complete the tasks assigned. . . .

 

[George B]

You car has "sensors" and "autopilot" (cruise control). That does not mean you could program it (mid-trip even) to drive to Las Vegas and park in front of the Bellagio.

It's a lot easier to use human pilots, even if there was some shadowy conspiracy behind the whole thing. It would have been 100x as reliable to have human pilots fly a bit slower.

Sure it might have been easier. . . it was also easier to use a truck bomb the first attempt on the Towers but it failed. . . .seems people are not as reliable as a computer sometimes. . . . so use the best capabilities of both. . . .

 

[MikeC]

Remote In-Flight Course Changes Facilitated By 9/11 Model Aircraft Circa 2001

<etc>

Content from External Source

Interesting - I did not know that - thank you - congratulations on managing some actual good research!

So - what is the evidence that this was actually done for any of these aircraft? The "Pegasus system" will have multiple possible modifications applicable to it and still remain "the Pegasus FMC" - so what was required for a Pegasus system to be able to perform this function? Which version or modification state? Were these fitted to the attack aircraft?

Was any of the equipment actually in place at any of the controlling towers or the airline operation centers?

Again, since remote control has in fact been technically possible for decades, is there any actual evidence that this was actually done to these aircraft in order to carry out this attack?

Content from External Source

 

[Rico]

I am not saying it is not possible for a human being. . . .I am saying it was used to insure the inexperienced humans in the loop were ale to complete the tasks assigned. . . .

Right, but that's quite a hefty insurance policy if you think about the following summary:
-The avionics bay cannot be accessed in flight
-The aircraft took off of three separate airports
-The stock autopilot isn't designed to go pass certain limits
-The stock autopilot is downstream of the pilot's controls
-The stock autopilot manipulates the same basic controls the pilot uses
-The aerodynamics which affect the aircraft controls are the same ones that both an autopilot or the human uses
-That you have to either modify the aircraft behind people's back on the ground or in the factory, which is purely an assumption

If you command a heading change on the autopilot, it takes a few moments for the autopilot to command the roll. If rookie pilot would have difficulty controlling his bird, the autopilot would too, because of the way the autopilot is integrated. Unlike a cruise missile, it isn't designed as a direct interface to hit a target. It's designed to capture tracks, shoot ILS landings, and help the pilot through the course of flight.

As for the inexperienced human beings... well, between Captain Aimer's video and the Dutch demonstration in the simulator, at least 1 of the 2 inexperienced pilots hit his target (three times). These hijackers may have been crap pilots, but they trained specifically for their mission. To rig the aircraft to help insure them takes too many assumptions and too many steps, all of which does not logically add up in the framework of how the autoflight works in the particular aircraft.

 

[George B]

Interesting - I did not know that - thank you - congratulations on managing some actual good research!

So - what is the evidence that this was actually done for any of these aircraft? The "Pegasus system" will have multiple possible modifications applicable to it and still remain "the Pegasus FMC" - so what was required for a Pegasus system to be able to perform this function? Which version or modification state? Were these fitted to the attack aircraft?

Was any of the equipment actually in place at any of the controlling towers or the airline operation centers?

Again, since remote control has in fact been technically possible for decades, is there any actual evidence that this was actually done to these aircraft in order to carry out this attack?

You might find some answers here. . . .

Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems

Aidan Monaghan (B.Sc., EET)Abstract
The alleged flight performances of inexperienced terrorist pilots accused of proficiently operating complex flightcontrol systems of four aircraft during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 has surprised observers. Moreover,official information presented to demonstrate terrorist pilot control of the said aircraft has been either unverifiable ordemonstrated to contain noteworthy anomalies. The flight paths of the September 11, 2001 attack aircraft bearcharacteristics common to the capabilities provided by precision automated flight control systems and relatedcommercial aviation technology that emerged just prior to these attacks. The clandestine use of precise augmentedGPS guided auto-pilot aircraft systems in order to perform the said aircraft attacks is hypothesized.
Keywords: Global Positioning System, Wide Area Augmentation System, Selective Availability, RequiredNavigation Performance, Flight Management System, Multi-Mode Receiver, Dynamic Airborne Reroute Procedure,Radius-to-Fix Turn, Geometric Dilution of Precision.

http://www.jamigen.com/uploads/AutopilotSystemsMonaghan.pdf

On September 7, 1998 Honeywell Internationalannounced plans by American Airlines and UnitedAirlines, to install the RNP-capable Pegasus FlightManagement System (FMS) within their Boeing 757and 767 aircraft, with a 150 waypoint routecapacity.[27][28]

Content from External Source

 

[Rico]

Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems
Aidan Monaghan (B.Sc., EET)Abstract
The alleged flight performances of inexperienced terrorist pilots accused of proficiently operating complex flightcontrol systems of four aircraft during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 has surprised observers. Moreover,official information presented to demonstrate terrorist pilot control of the said aircraft has been either unverifiable ordemonstrated to contain noteworthy anomalies. The flight paths of the September 11, 2001 attack aircraft bearcharacteristics common to the capabilities provided by precision automated flight control systems and relatedcommercial aviation technology that emerged just prior to these attacks. The clandestine use of precise augmentedGPS guided auto-pilot aircraft systems in order to perform the said aircraft attacks is hypothesized.

Keywords: Global Positioning System, Wide Area Augmentation System, Selective Availability, RequiredNavigation Performance, Flight Management System, Multi-Mode Receiver, Dynamic Airborne Reroute Procedure,Radius-to-Fix Turn, Geometric Dilution of Precision.

The flight paths of the September 11 attacks bears little similarities to that of automation. AA 77 circling to lose altitude for instance. UA175 in a steep descending turn is another. Automation prefers simple geometry. A straight line would have done better justice in accurately hitting a target. Also, in regard to pegasus, there is a difference between being remotely able to send a flight path to the FMS than there is in the actual operation of the autopilot. The autopilot and the FMS are two separate units that try to work together. Sending data to the FMS does not overcome various limitations of the autopilot.

 

[George B]

The flight paths of the September 11 attacks bears little similarities to that of automation. AA 77 circling to lose altitude for instance. UA175 in a steep descending turn is another. Automation prefers simple geometry. A straight line would have done better justice in accurately hitting a target. Also, in regard to pegasus, there is a difference between being remotely able to send a flight path to the FMS than there is in the actual operation of the autopilot. The autopilot and the FMS are two separate units that try to work together. Sending data to the FMS does not overcome various limitations of the autopilot.

I think it is technically possible to modify the autopilot limitations. . . .I would think they are primarily software in nature. . . . hmmm. . . as far as the flight path of 77. . . if my plan is to make everyone believe the hijackers did everything a non-automated flight path with behavior mimicking an inexperienced pilot would be preferred don't you think?

 

[George B]

An interesting take on the need for precision possibly beyond reproducible abilities of humans. . . .

Evidence of Precise Navigation


Contributing to the plausibility of precision automated control of the two aircraft striking the WTC, is the fact that each aircraft struck precisely the bottom regions of the only sections within each WTC tower only recently upgraded with thermal protection materials. This would suggest a clandestine relationship between the visually spectacular aircraft attacks upon the WTC and activity pre-September 11, 2001 within each WTC aircraft impact region, intended to initiate structural failure not generated by the aircraft attacks themselves and contribute to an appearance of structural failures caused by each aircraft impact.[66] Floors 92 and above were re-fireproofed between1995-2000 within WTC 1. WTC 1 was struck at floor 94 by AA 11. Floors 77 and above were re-fireproofed between 1995-2000 within WTC 2. WTC2 was struck at floor 78 by UA 175.[67][68]
http://www.jamigen.com/uploads/AutopilotSystemsMonaghan.pdf

Content from External Source

 

[MikeC]

Why would they precisely want to hit floors that had just had the fireproofing UPGRADED??

And no I find little of use in your cut and paste on ghte plausibility of GPS guided attacks.

The only observers "surprised" by the "accuracy" of the attacks are those who have no real idea about what constitutes accuracy.

You C&P also provides no actual evidence of the system being available on those airliners or to anyone on hte ground who might direct them. It is, as is usual, pure speculation and wishful thinking.

 

[Rico]

I think it is technically possible to modify the autopilot limitations. . . .I would think they are primarily software in nature. . . . hmmm. . . as far as the flight path of 77. . . if my plan is to make everyone believe the hijackers did everything a non-automated flight path with behavior mimicking an inexperienced pilot would be preferred don't you think?

Not quite. I suspect a large part of those limitations are also mechanical.

As for mimicking an inexperienced pilot... well.... You know, I was playing this video game called 'Mass Effect' that had some cute sounding AI controlling a spaceship dodging a technologically based alien race trying to invade the galaxy. That is the first thing that came to my mind. But this isn't a video game, and the Boeing 767/757 isn't some futuristic space ship. Nor do I think you can make those three boxes in the avionics bay perform such intricate logarithms to mimic an inexperienced pilot. You know, the thing about calling something Hollywood is because in the movies, the facts aren't exactly correct.

As for associating this with the fireproofing... you should read this article here in order to understand a little bit about the buildings:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...uZADHY6G95bWP2g&bvm=bv.42768644,d.aWM&cad=rja

It's not like United 175 struck it's tower with a gentle bank angle. The article cited tried to connect two dots. Coincidental, perhaps, but hardly a strong connection.

 

[George B]

Why would they precisely want to hit floors that had just had the fireproofing UPGRADED??

And no I find little of use in your cut and paste on ghte plausibility of GPS guided attacks.

The only observers "surprised" by the "accuracy" of the attacks are those who have no real idea about what constitutes accuracy.

You C&P also provides no actual evidence of the system being available on those airliners or to anyone on hte ground who might direct them. It is, as is usual, pure speculation and wishful thinking.

It is interesting to me this individual (unknown to me until this afternoon) came up with almost the same speculation. . . . I find that very serendipitous . . . LOL!!!

 

[George B]

Not quite. I suspect a large part of those limitations are also mechanical.

As for mimicking an inexperienced pilot... well.... You know, I was playing this video game called 'Mass Effect' that had some cute sounding AI controlling a spaceship dodging a technologically based alien race trying to invade the galaxy. That is the first thing that came to my mind. But this isn't a video game, and the Boeing 767/757 isn't some futuristic space ship. Nor do I think you can make those three boxes in the avionics bay perform such intricate logarithms to mimic an inexperienced pilot. You know, the thing about calling something Hollywood is because in the movies, the facts aren't exactly correct.

As for associating this with the fireproofing... you should read this article here in order to understand a little bit about the buildings:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEYQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fireengineering.com%2Farticles%2Fprint%2Fvolume-155%2Fissue-10%2Fworld-trade-center-disaster%2Fvolume-ii-the-ruins-and-the-rebirth%2Ffireproofing-at-the-wtc-towers.html&ei=kXspUdmSL5DdqwGKrIDgCA&usg=AFQjCNEGrqzIbCZdTL_uZADHY6G95bWP2g&bvm=bv.42768644,d.aWM&cad=rja

It's not like United 175 struck it's tower with a gentle bank angle. The article cited tried to connect two dots. Coincidental, perhaps, but hardly a strong connection.

Well I am through . . . We are no closer to each other than when we started. . . .

I won't be satisfied until it is demonstrated to me that an actual aircraft can be flown at the specified speeds near ground level . . . I know no one is going to do it unless it is either mandated or done as a movie stunt . . . I don't believe the flight recorders were not located . . . and someone is hiding something significant and I think many of you know it as well. . . .I have offered to conduct the poll on a real aviation Forum but I am not going to do it by myself. . . I really don't think anyone here cares to see the results . . . so have fun. . . .

 

[Cairenn]

So you are REFUSING to collect information that might show your opinion to be wrong. You have decided a lot of things that have no background in reality or in the facts. You have decided that SOMEONE is HIDING something.

Folks here have enough proof, we don't need more. I for one have looked at the FACTS and the opinions of experienced folks, I don't need more. There is plenty of proof already.

It seems that you do not want to change your mind. You won't accept what the facts show.

 

[George B]

So you are REFUSING to collect information that might show your opinion to be wrong. You have decided a lot of things that have no background in reality or in the facts. You have decided that SOMEONE is HIDING something.

Folks here have enough proof, we don't need more. I for one have looked at the FACTS and the opinions of experienced folks, I don't need more. There is plenty of proof already.

It seems that you do not want to change your mind. You won't accept what the facts show.

LOL!!!! You may believe what you wish. . . .and I will as well . . . these are not the only experienced people in the world. . . . and not everyone believes the way they do . . . I am pleased you are satisfied . . . I have been around the block as well and I have no problem evaluating the evidence as well and think something doesn't smell right. . . keep smelling your roses . . . I smell deceit . . .

 

[RolandD]

Well I am through . . . We are no closer to each other than when we started. . . .

I won't be satisfied until it is demonstrated to me that an actual aircraft can be flown at the specified speeds near ground level . . . I know no one is going to do it unless it is either mandated or done as a movie stunt . . . I don't believe the flight recorders were not located . . . and someone is hiding something significant and I think many of you know it as well. . . .I have offered to conduct the poll on a real aviation Forum but I am not going to do it by myself. . . I really don't think anyone here cares to see the results . . . so have fun. . . .

Then, George, you will never be satisfied. What you stated in bold requires proof of a negative, which is impossible. There is no way in the entire universe to PROVE that the flight recorders were destroyed and no way to PROVE that no one is hiding something.

p.s. You have immense trouble evaluating evidence.

 

[Rico]

George, I meant no disrespect with my comment. It's just that the ideas presented seems over-imaginative, so sorry if it came across that way.

George, you say you smell deceit, and yet I haven't seen you able to pinpoint why. At some point, you need to start evaluating the stuff you collect. If you smell 'deceit', you are going to have to start figuring out why and whether that is valid. That means criticizing your own theories as well as the theories of others. The problem with your ideas is that they present problems that require many assumptions to justify. Occam's razor, among competing hypothesis, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.

You can't start with a theory and work backwords. This leads to quite a bit of confirmation bias. You need to have the facts straight before forming theories. That is the only way you can properly investigate information, that that is what separates bunk from non-bunk. Believe what you want, but you should take this core aspect of thinking to heart, for otherwise you will find yourself running around in circles dreaming about stuff that likely isn't all that important.

 

[George B]

Then, George, you will never be satisfied. What you stated in bold requires proof of a negative, which is impossible. There is no way in the entire universe to PROVE that the flight recorders were destroyed and no way to PROVE that no one is hiding something.

That is reality . . . real people have to make real life decisions based on the lack of information . . . sorry but that is just how the REAL world works . . . the Scientific Method and controlled experimental design only exists in the confines of a laboratory or a controlled environment where variables can be eliminated one at a time and tested to see their contribution . . . sorry I believe someone has removed necessary information and data from your experiment so your conclusions are false or inadequate . . . you believe otherwise . . . go for it . . .

 

[George B]

George, I meant no disrespect with my comment. It's just that the ideas presented seems over-imaginative, so sorry if it came across that way.

George, you say you smell deceit, and yet I haven't seen you able to pinpoint why. At some point, you need to start evaluating the stuff you collect. If you smell 'deceit', you are going to have to start figuring out why and whether that is valid. That means criticizing your own theories as well as the theories of others. The problem with your ideas is that they present problems that require many assumptions to justify. Occam's razor, among competing hypothesis, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.

You can't start with a theory and work backwords. This leads to quite a bit of confirmation bias. You need to have the facts straight before forming theories. That is the only way you can properly investigate information, that that is what separates bunk from non-bunk. Believe what you want, but you should take this core aspect of thinking to heart, for otherwise you will find yourself running around in circles dreaming about stuff that likely isn't all that important.

Thanks for your concern . . . right now I am just tired . . . I spent much of my life investigating, lies, foul ups, accidents, malpractice, suicides, assaults, rapes and the like . . . one developes a nose for BS after continued exposure . . . IMO 911 smells big time . . . can I tell you exactly where . . . no, not exactly but I know it smells . . .

 

[Cairenn]

You choose to believe what 4 out of thousands of pilots say. That is unreasonable to me. You refuse to do a poll that would show those 4 of 5 pilots wrong.

You remind me of the person that 'doctor shops'. They go on the internet and decide what they have, and then they keep going from doctor to doctor until they find one that agrees with them. If they are lucky, that doctor has figured it out and tells them what they WANT to hear and he treats the real problem. If they aren't they will find a 'quack' (as my dad called them) and they will treat them with 'bat's ears and frog tongues' (the modern equivalent) . They were around before the internet, back then they got diseases that family and friends got and 'sugar' pills did wonders for curing them.

 

[captfitch]

Ok- seriously. This thread has gone on long enough. Why would anyone reprogram an entire aircraft when you can just train pilots to do all the work!? The CVRs all have the info on them. The guys were heard on ATC. The Pennsylvania plane was the same as the others but it was prevented from completing it's task by the pax.

Just enough.

 

[George B]

You choose to believe what 4 out of thousands of pilots say. That is unreasonable to me. You refuse to do a poll that would show those 4 of 5 pilots wrong.

You remind me of the person that 'doctor shops'. They go on the internet and decide what they have, and then they keep going from doctor to doctor until they find one that agrees with them. If they are lucky, that doctor has figured it out and tells them what they WANT to hear and he treats the real problem. If they aren't they will find a 'quack' (as my dad called them) and they will treat them with 'bat's ears and frog tongues' (the modern equivalent) . They were around before the internet, back then they got diseases that family and friends got and 'sugar' pills did wonders for curing them.

Have you conducted a poll on a FORUM???? Until you do you might want to check out the difficulty . . . most Forums don't allow just anyone to do so . . . especially a new unknown person . . . the rules are all different . . . I have not refused . . . I have asked for assistance . . .believe what you wish . . . try to do a poll here why don't you or go to GLP and conduct one . . . have fun!!!!

 

[RolandD]

That is reality . . .

No, that is reality as you perceive it. We are trying to make you understand why your perception is wrong. The scientific method functions perfectly well in the real world. Certainly, there are times when we must make decisions based on insufficient information, but when new information comes along, we must adapt our opinions to reflect that new information. There is never a good reason to form an opinion based on zero evidence.

 

[Cairenn]

Have you attempted to ask the mods there to help you? If not, why not? Tell them that you are gathering information, that you have read pilots say that it couldn't be done and since you aren't a pilot, you would like to find out what a cross section of non biased pilots had to say. Don't go in tell them that you want them to verify those.

Treat it like a science experiment, or a REAL poll.

I don't trust polls unless I can see the question they asked and some evidence that the poll was random. I had a wonderful Civics teacher in High School and one of our assignments was to write an opinion poll question and take a poll and analyze it. It was a very learning experience. One or two words can change your results. Where a poll is taken can change it. A poll taken on gun control outside of a gun show or a rodeo will give you very different results than one taken in a upscale shopping mall, or outside a garden show.

 

[George B]

Have you attempted to ask the mods there to help you? If not, why not? Tell them that you are gathering information, that you have read pilots say that it couldn't be done and since you aren't a pilot, you would like to find out what a cross section of non biased pilots had to say. Don't go in tell them that you want them to verify those.

Treat it like a science experiment, or a REAL poll.

I don't trust polls unless I can see the question they asked and some evidence that the poll was random. I had a wonderful Civics teacher in High School and one of our assignments was to write an opinion poll question and take a poll and analyze it. It was a very learning experience. One or two words can change your results. Where a poll is taken can change it. A poll taken on gun control outside of a gun show or a rodeo will give you very different results than one taken in a upscale shopping mall, or outside a garden show.

You still didn't answer my questions?

 

[George B]

No, that is reality as you perceive it. We are trying to make you understand why your perception is wrong. The scientific method functions perfectly well in the real world. Certainly, there are times when we must make decisions based on insufficient information, but when new information comes along, we must adapt our opinions to reflect that new information. There is never a good reason to form an opinion based on zero evidence.

No . . . most people are forced to make decisions without sufficient information . . . it is called living

 

[RolandD]

No . . . most people are forced to make decisions without sufficient information . . . it is called living

Which part of my post are you denying? I agree that decisions often must be made on insufficient info, my argument is that it need not be written in stone.

 

[Cairenn]

I have conducted a poll and I have moderated a forum. That is why I asked you to ask the mods, you should be able to PM them and ask and explain why.

Often there is information if one wants to look for it, or if it is important enough to spend time on. I think most folks do some research on a new car before they buy it. Many folks will check out opinions on a movie or a restaurant, before they go. Even then, there is a difference in stopping and having dinner when one is out or if one is planning a nice dinner out for a special occasion.

No ONE forces them. In the days before the internet, a lot of info was harder to find and might not be as available. I know folks that still depend on Inter Library Loan for a lot of information.

One can however push the desire for information to the extreme. One needs to learn to accept a preponderance of evidence and go on that. Aspirin has been used for centuries as a pain killer (willow bark is the herb) but it has only been recently that we had some idea of how it works and also of it's negative side effects and it's non painkilling advantages. I have heard that aspirin would not have an easy time getting approved as a drug today. I don't know if that is true. You see that is one difference in us. I have read that, I have not researched it, so I leave it in the 'interesting' spot

 

[MikeC]

I won't be satisfied until it is demonstrated to me that an actual aircraft can be flown at the specified speeds near ground level . . . .

There has been considerable evidence presented that it is not the problem you and others think it is.

To refuse to believe that evidence because it is not a practical demonstration is just bloody mindedness. It demonstrates that you have no actual interest in discovering facts or real research - as has been suspected by me an others since you started posting here.

You may delude yourself that you are seeking "the truth" - but your persistent refusal to accept factual evidence gives lie to your stated aims.

This cognitive dissonance has been pointed out to you time and time again, so there can be no question that you simply do not realise you are doing it - it is deliberate.

 

[George B]

Ok- seriously. This thread has gone on long enough. Why would anyone reprogram an entire aircraft when you can just train pilots to do all the work!? The CVRs all have the info on them. The guys were heard on ATC. The Pennsylvania plane was the same as the others but it was prevented from completing it's task by the pax.

Just enough.

They are minimally trained, emotionally distraught, fanatics. . . and no one has done these things since WWII when the Japanese were suicide dive bombing into US Naval vessels . . . at I might add much lower speeds. . . The real analogy may well be the old torpedo attacks. . . . wonder what were the maximum speeds they used to line up and launch their torpedoes . . . ????

 

[George B]

I have conducted a poll and I have moderated a forum. That is why I asked you to ask the mods, you should be able to PM them and ask and explain why.

Often there is information if one wants to look for it, or if it is important enough to spend time on. I think most folks do some research on a new car before they buy it. Many folks will check out opinions on a movie or a restaurant, before they go. Even then, there is a difference in stopping and having dinner when one is out or if one is planning a nice dinner out for a special occasion.

No ONE forces them. In the days before the internet, a lot of info was harder to find and might not be as available. I know folks that still depend on Inter Library Loan for a lot of information.

One can however push the desire for information to the extreme. One needs to learn to accept a preponderance of evidence and go on that. Aspirin has been used for centuries as a pain killer (willow bark is the herb) but it has only been recently that we had some idea of how it works and also of it's negative side effects and it's non painkilling advantages. I have heard that aspirin would not have an easy time getting approved as a drug today. I don't know if that is true. You see that is one difference in us. I have read that, I have not researched it, so I leave it in the 'interesting' spot

Well good. . . .the whole thing is right here on this Thread. . . .with the hotlinks, etc. . . .and ready made comparison with a conspiracy Forum. . . .go for it. . . .


I actually hope you don't. . . .all of you will insist that only a minuscule number of pilots believe it would have been difficult to have hit the 911 targets . . . .and I will say BUNK. . . . You cannot prove it . . . Even when you had the opportunity to find out. . . .

POLL: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the sp

7) No 27.2% (64)

6) Probably not, it would be very hard to do 14.0% (33)

2) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward 10.6% (25)

8) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed 10.2% (24)

11) I don't know 10.2% (24)

1) Yes 8.9% (21)

9) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed 5.5% (13)

10) No, the plane could never even reach that speed. 5.1% (12)

4) Yes, but it would have been very difficult 3.8% (9)

3) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration 3.0% (7)

5) Probably, but they were pretty lucky 1.3% (3)

Blank (View Results)(59)


Non-Blank Votes: 235

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2141354/pg1

Content from External Source

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2141354/pg1

Q) Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11? (the pilots were assumed to have earned a commercial license within the previous year) (Tower #1 = 473 - 510 Knots Groundspeed, Tower#2 = 430 Knots Groundspeed, Pentagon = 460 Knots Groundspeed)


1) Yes
2) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward
3) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration
4) Yes, but it would have been very difficult
5) Probably, but they were pretty lucky
6) Probably not, it would be very hard to do
7) No
8) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed
9) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed
10) No, the plane could never even reach that speed.
11) I don't know
Flight 77. . . Pentagon source


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77


NTSB sources


http://www.documentingreality.com/f...t-175-video-data-impact-speed-study-ua175.pdf


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175.pdf


Flight experience source


http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts

Content from External Source

 

[George B]

Which part of my post are you denying? I agree that decisions often must be made on insufficient info, my argument is that it need not be written in stone.

I am not denying anything. . . I did not say there is not evidence the official story could be correct . . .I don't think I have ever said that. . . .however, I think the 911 investigation was sloppy, inadequate, incomplete and not transparent. . . critical information is missing and/or intentionally withheld . . . and just like the Kennedy assassination, MLK's, Robert Kennedy's, Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Maine, and on and on . . . I smell coverup and public manipulation for the purpose of political and strategic goals far beyond the events listed above. . . .

 

[George B]

There has been considerable evidence presented that it is not the problem you and others think it is.

To refuse to believe that evidence because it is not a practical demonstration is just bloody mindedness. It demonstrates that you have no actual interest in discovering facts or real research - as has been suspected by me an others since you started posting here.

You may delude yourself that you are seeking "the truth" - but your persistent refusal to accept factual evidence gives lie to your stated aims.

This cognitive dissonance has been pointed out to you time and time again, so there can be no question that you simply do not realise you are doing it - it is deliberate.

LOL!!! I do not . . . NOT believe the evidence. .. . I don't believe your conclusions based on the facts preclude skulduggery. . . SIMPLE. . . .I think the investigation should remain officially open and ongoing. . . .

 

[Mick West]

I am not denying anything. . . I did not say there is not evidence the official story could be correct . . .I don't think I have ever said that. . . .however, I think the 911 investigation was sloppy, inadequate, incomplete and not transparent. . . critical information is missing and/or intentionally withheld . . . and just like the Kennedy assassination, MLK's, Robert Kennedy's, Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Maine, and on and on . . . I smell coverup and public manipulation for the purpose of political and strategic goals far beyond the events listed above. . . .

I suspect though that you would feel that way about any investigation. It's the nature of things that they cannot describe the entire universe in detail, hence there's always going to be gaps for the suspicious to find their suspicions in.

Can you give an example of ANY investigation of ANYTHING that has met your standards?