The Core of Corruption, the one video that will shatter your beliefs about 9/11

[Nightbat®]

“There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.”

Whatever the deal with 9/11 the only thing that matters is that the US government managed to cash in on it pretty well and now have a very solid grip, with the people there still thinking they live in "the land of the free"

Soviet Russia would have been proud

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by JC...

I know, very surprising. Untrained pilots manage to efficiently hit three relatively small objects (Pentagon being very close to the ground) without problem, when prior they had failed to efficiently learn how to fly a plane and left one in the middle of an operational runway. I guess they really are special snowflakes.

By whistleblower, I don't mean Alex Jones, I'm talking about CIA/FBI/Government/Police who talk out about their experiences with false flag operations and other such data in their field of work.

I'd like to know what your experience is with flying airplanes? Because your post shows a complete lack of knowledge of how easy it is to operate an aircraft, whether it's a J3 Piper Cub, or a Boeing 747.

I work in aviation, and have been since February of 2000. I, and others that I know were actually interviewed after 9/11(I showed up on the local tv news twice from the interview), and the owner of one of our customers(Fred Sorbi of Sorbi Aviation) was actually interviewed by the Federal Government, due to him having actually met several of the hijackers. The U.S. Federal Government was very incompetent leading up to 9/11. Their daily actions in everything they are involved with, should have convinced you of that.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I'd like to know what your experience is with flying airplanes? Because your post shows a complete lack of knowledge of how easy it is to operate an aircraft, whether it's a J3 Piper Cub, or a Boeing 747.

I work in aviation, and have been since February of 2000. I, and others that I know were actually interviewed after 9/11(I showed up on the local tv news twice from the interview), and the owner of one of our customers(Fred Sorbi of Sorbi Aviation) was actually interviewed by the Federal Government, due to him having actually met several of the hijackers. The U.S. Federal Government was very incompetent leading up to 9/11. Their daily actions in everything they are involved with, should have convinced you of that.

Whether it be a plan or a car it is difficult to hit an object as you curve and I believe it will be more difficult with a plane than a car since planes would not respond as quickly as a car.
In the 9/11 strike the plane hit the tower fairly in center and not a glancing blow.
I believe it is the same with the Pentagon strike since it flew 2~5 meters above ground for about 30~50 meters at level without touching the ground since there are no grazing marks and the marking on the wall of the building suggests the plane was not in a decent mode like a Kamikaze attack.
A damn acrobatic feat if you ask me.

[DonQuigleone]

The 9/11 hijackers benefitted from the fact they weren't trying to learn to take off or land, which are probably the hardest part of flying a plane.

I won't say much more then that as clearly more knowledgeable people then me are commenting

[LoweGear]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Whether it be a plan or a car it is difficult to hit an object as you curve and I believe it will be more difficult with a plane than a car since planes would not respond as quickly as a car.
In the 9/11 strike the plane hit the tower fairly in center and not a glancing blow.
I believe it is the same with the Pentagon strike since it flew 2~5 meters above ground for about 30~50 meters at level without touching the ground since there are no grazing marks and the marking on the wall of the building suggests the plane was not in a decent mode like a Kamikaze attack.
A damn acrobatic feat if you ask me.

Why would you need to curve? It's not like the planes had to avoid buildings along the way, they just need to set the plane on a collision course with the buildings. All the footage we've seen of the crashes on the WTC show the planes flying straight into the towers, and they were much, much wider than the plane itself. They don't have to respond as quickly as a car, because their targets are massive, static objects they can see from a distance that have not a chance in hell of evading.

As for the Pentagon strike, 2-5 meters above ground for about 30-50 meters is just about landing parameters, just that this time the pilot had no intention of safely landing the plane.

It's frankly not that difficult to fly an airplane, and aiming an aircraft to crash at something larger than itself is a feat akin to someone ramming a car into a house: it's not a particularly noteworthy achievement as far as accuracy goes.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The 9/11 hijackers benefitted from the fact they weren't trying to learn to take off or land, which are probably the hardest part of flying a plane.

The problem is the plane strike to the Pentagon building was the same if not more difficult than landing a plane on a runway since it was flying horizontal to the ground at moment of impact meaning he made all the adjustments without any assistance from radar beacons normally telling you the required height the plane needs to be on a glide path to make it to the runway at the right altitude.


=Edit=

Why would you need to curve? It's not like the planes had to avoid buildings along the way, they just need to set the plane on a collision course with the buildings. All the footage we've seen of the crashes on the WTC show the planes flying straight into the towers, and they were much, much wider than the plane itself. They don't have to respond as quickly as a car, because their targets are massive, static objects they can see from a distance that have not a chance in hell of evading.

Not flying in a curve?
Here is the footage of the 2nd impact which shows it was flying in a curve seeing the plane coming from the right hand side and hitting the building on the left hand side judging from the fireball. You can also see the plane banking, clear indication it was on a curve.

[Nightbat®]

Meh let me brush up on my old microprose flight simulators and see me do a friggin barrelroll before joining myself with the facade of a building

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Whether it be a plan or a car it is difficult to hit an object as you curve and I believe it will be more difficult with a plane than a car since planes would not respond as quickly as a car.
In the 9/11 strike the plane hit the tower fairly in center and not a glancing blow.
I believe it is the same with the Pentagon strike since it flew 2~5 meters above ground for about 30~50 meters at level without touching the ground since there are no grazing marks and the marking on the wall of the building suggests the plane was not in a decent mode like a Kamikaze attack.
A damn acrobatic feat if you ask me.

Again, what is your background in aviation, and flying? I did my first un-assisted take-off when I was 6 years old in a Piper Comanche 250. These guys did have some flight training while they were here in the states(both in San Diego, and Florida). You can try and spin things all you want, but what you are talking about, is not difficult to do. A damn 6 year old could do most of it if you give them a couple hours of training.

[Ithekro]

Looks like a long distance correction...and he almost missed, as the second plane went through a corner of the building. You have miles to aim the plane at a building that size.

The Pentagon might be trickier, but you do have gauges in an airplane that tell you how high you are. And they aren't that hard to figure out (also some of the first things you learn in ground school is what the gauges do). Anyone can attempt to come in for a landing...making sure the plane and the people in it are safe when the plane stops moving...that's the hard part. Knowing your stall speed, when to roll the nose up so you land on your wheels. How slow you can go without the plane falling out of the sky in an uncontrolled fashion. How fast can you go and still make a full stop on the runway. How to make sure the winds don't mess up your approach. Those are the hard things.

Someone referenced Kamikaze. Those were basically trainee pilots as well. They didn't need to know how to land, only to take off and have the will to put the plane into a large moving ship. These Terrorists had unmoving targets that were a lot bigger than any World War II warships or transports. Sure they were using larger aircraft as well, but no one was shooting at them either.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Again, what is your background in aviation, and flying? I did my first un-assisted take-off when I was 6 years old in a Piper Comanche 250. These guys did have some flight training while they were here in the states(both in San Diego, and Florida). You can try and spin things all you want, but what you are talking about, is not difficult to do. A damn 6 year old could do most of it if you give them a couple hours of training.

So you are suggesting that if you can drive a car you can also drive a 16 wheeler.
I doubt it.
Flying characteristics of a Cessna and a 737 would dynamically be different stated by laws of physics due to the difference in mass. I really cannot believe a person who had barely graduated flight school be able to turn a plane around and place the plane on a path towards a building in a curve.
It's like me being placed in a 16 wheeler and being told to turn the rig around and hit a tower during a curve. I know a little about driving and I can assure you I would probably stall the engine, under steer or worse jack knife the rig due to the radical difference in handling characteristics.
Isn't this the very reason why all pilot are required to obtain a license to pilot different type of plane?
I believe piloting a 737 and A320 would be similar but how does it compare to a A380 or a 747-800?
Are you saying that a person who had only been barely able to pilot a 737 would be able to trace a path with A380 with a full load at his first time when he has no idea the flying characteristics would be?
Isn't this the reason why pilots train on a simulator and are required to have a certain amount of time on the simulator before flying the real thing every time a pilot is assigned to a new plane type?

Being able to read gauges and actually flying the thing is a complete different thing and I think the gauges are not sensitive enough to measure below 5 meters and pilots wouldn't not normally need them since the landing gears are there to tell them.

[justinstrife]

Again, what is your background in aviation? Have you ever piloted an aircraft? Any aircraft? I have. From Piper Cubs, to Comanche 250's, to King Air 200's, to Cessna Citation V's, to a BellRanger helicopter(now that, is a whole nother ballgame, and one where you can't just jump in and fly...). Flying an aircraft is not rocket science. Especially if you have already gone through some ground schooling and actual flight training like these terrorists did.

What is your experience flying aircraft? The actual flying characteristics between a 737 and a Cessna 172, aren't extremely different. You still have a yoke, rudder, trim, throttle, etc to deal with, regardless of how big the aircraft is. Also, you are not driving on roads like you would with the 16 wheeler. You are up in the sky with considerably more maneuvering room to operate.

I could throw you into a small private aircraft, or a 737, and have you flying it within minutes. The parts you wouldn't be able to do, would be landing it, or reading charts, using plotters, e6b computers, radio communication, etc. Since you've never had any of that training before, where as these guys had some of that(not that they needed most of it considering what they were doing).

You should have seen some of the limited flight training some of the Japanese pilots had near the end of WW2 when they were running out of experienced pilots. And what they were flying, was considerably more difficult than what we have now.

[Vexx]

Having *flown* things from a Cessna to a B-52 (the latter mostly in a simulator but a bit of real time as I was on a team building flight sims to train nuke crews), yes there's not a huge amount of difference conceptually. With a large aircraft there's more gauges (an extra set for each engine) and redundancy in displays and controls. You execute moves smoothly and without oversteer. With a big bird you plot a lot farther ahead and execute smaller changes (though they can do some amazing maneuvers). Taking off isn't terribly hard in either ... go through the checklist but in short -set the flaps, gun the engines and go. Pull up as you exceed stall speed.

*LANDING* can be a bitch in both small and large aircraft - but for very different reasons. Getting blown around is a problem in small aircraft and you have to time that last second move in a crosswind to straighten out. Large aircraft often have wheels that align so you can land at an angle... but their biggest gotcha is what was mentioned above... oversteer is death and getting too far out of the landing envelope is bad unless you just gun it and go-round for another try.

My son (6yrs old at the time) got fairly proficient at flying a certain big bird simulator when we'd have "family visit days" - he could hit sky markers and position fix points. Landing was too stressful for him though (he'd be so immersed it would freak him out if he thought we were going to crash).

What is *hard* to fly without much training is -- a jet fighter and a helicopter. Either will splorch you in a heartbeat if you wander out of the stability envelope. I got to spend some time on F-16 sims (death, death, big death, death), Apache (okay til nap-of-the-earth then death) and Huey S&R helicopter sims (somewhat okay but eventually death).

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Again, what is your background in aviation? Have you ever piloted an aircraft? Any aircraft? I have. From Piper Cubs, to Comanche 250's, to King Air 200's, to Cessna Citation V's, to a BellRanger helicopter(now that, is a whole nother ballgame, and one where you can't just jump in and fly...). Flying an aircraft is not rocket science. Especially if you have already gone through some ground schooling and actual flight training like these terrorists did.

What is your experience flying aircraft? The actual flying characteristics between a 737 and a Cessna 172, aren't extremely different. You still have a yoke, rudder, trim, throttle, etc to deal with, regardless of how big the aircraft is. Also, you are not driving on roads like you would with the 16 wheeler. You are up in the sky with considerably more maneuvering room to operate.

I could throw you into a small private aircraft, or a 737, and have you flying it within minutes. The parts you wouldn't be able to do, would be landing it, or reading charts, using plotters, e6b computers, radio communication, etc. Since you've never had any of that training before, where as these guys had some of that(not that they needed most of it considering what they were doing).

You should have seen some of the limited flight training some of the Japanese pilots had near the end of WW2 when they were running out of experienced pilots. And what they were flying, was considerably more difficult than what we have now.

Your words falls deaf to my ears knowing very simple laws of physics.
Making assertion on the web means nothing to me. My knowledge with science does.
Flying straight maybe but pulling a turn into a designated area?
I don't think so. Driving a 16 wheeler no matter how large an area, I would probably not be able to start moving the thing and even if I could I know I would not be able to place it into a path on a curve. As I said the characteristics are completely different.
Effect of inertia on a 737 and a Cessna would be completely different due to it's mass so the turn rate should be completely different. Thrust ratio would be different due to difference in engine power and difference in type of engine.

In simple terms you can't compensate to maintain a course when you don't know how much it will take to compensate in the first place. As I pointed out in my 16 wheeler analogy you would under/over compensate with the power as well as in maintaining a course.
So naturally piloting a plane with a single/double turbo prop engine with a instructor on your side would be completely different with a double turbo fan engine that is 5 times the size full of passengers.

[justinstrife]

You talk physics, yet you have no actual experience with flying aircraft. Even Vexx is debunking what you're talking about.

Seriously, go take a flight lesson in an aircraft for 30 minutes, then come back to us when you know WTF you are talking about...

There is no compensating. You turn the yoke, maybe adjust some rudder, and the aircraft follows your commands and goes where you tell it to. It's so easy a caveman can do it. It doesn't matter if it's a C172, or a Boeing 747.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNRk...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3iKL...eature=related

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

You talk physics, yet you have no actual experience with flying aircraft. Even Vexx is debunking what you're talking about.

Seriously, go take a flight lesson in an aircraft for 30 minutes, then come back to us when you know WTF you are talking about...

There is no compensating. You turn the yoke, maybe adjust some rudder, and the aircraft follows your commands and goes where you tell it to. It's so easy a caveman can do it. It doesn't matter if it's a C172, or a Boeing 747.

Vexx's posting does not debunk anything.
Within his post he states;

With a big bird you plot a lot farther ahead and execute smaller changes (though they can do some amazing maneuvers).

How in the world would a novice pilot who have no previous knowledge flying a big plane obtain this knowledge?
How would a person who has no knowledge on how a plane would handle be able to maintain a course and hit an object in a curve on his first try?
Science predicts this but I would not know in exact amount how much to compensate as same as a 16 wheeler since this knowledge can only be obtained through EXPERIENCE, something they did not have.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Vexx's posting does not debunk anything.
Within his post he states;



How in the world would a novice pilot who have no previous knowledge flying a big plane obtain this knowledge?
How would a person who has no knowledge on how a plane would handle be able to maintain a course and hit an object in a curve on his first try?
Science predicts this but I would not know in exact amount how much to compensate as same as a 16 wheeler since this knowledge can only be obtained through EXPERIENCE, something they did not have.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make the horse drink that water...

[Ithekro]

The control surfaces on a larger aircraft handle just like those on a smaller aircraft. Airliners are designed to handle very easilly and confortably. They are designed for long distance flights to the pilot won't get tired fighting the airplane at all. They might turn a little wider than a smaller aricraft, but when your approach is 20 miles out or more, you have a well over a minute to correct your course in a nice easy arc.

If an aircraft is in the air already, you could put pretty much any pilot in it and he would be able to fly it. He might not know what all the controls do, but the simple parts that let you fly the aircraft are the same in pretty much all civilian aircraft.

These guys had some training to be pilots...so they were not rock stupid, nor someone that had never held the controls before. They know enough to fly those planes. They might not have been very good, or had the skills needed to properly land the aircraft...but you don't need that to run into a building at full thottle.

The differences between a car and a 16 wheeler are much, much larger than a single engine aircraft to a jumbo jet in terms of how to drive them. In a 16 wheeler you have so many gears you need to shift it isn't even funny. In a jumbo jet...you have multiple engines...that all have the same controls that the single engine plane has. You might have a few more controls for various breaking apparatus and reverse thrust for landing...but you don't need those if you don't intend to land. You will have a more complex radio and navigation system, but the standard navigation ways still work just fine (compass and a heading indicator)...and you don't need the radio if you intend to die in fire, and even then all you need to figure out is how to get to the frequency of the airport you are going to and if you are a single engine pilot, you will know how to do that. Thing you won't know are your stall speed, and other things you mostly need for landing. But to just fly the aircraft...assuming the plane has nothing wrong with it and you are in relatively normal weather conditions...a single engine pilot could fly a jumbo jet without much of a problem. That and everything is marked in the cockpit.

I was able to fly a Cessna 150 at age 7. It is not that hard. If a seven year old can fly a single engine aircraft with little to no training, a grown man with limited real training can handle a Boeing 757.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Vexx's posting does not debunk anything.
Within his post he states;



How in the world would a novice pilot who have no previous knowledge flying a big plane obtain this knowledge?
How would a person who has no knowledge on how a plane would handle be able to maintain a course and hit an object in a curve on his first try?
Science predicts this but I would not know in exact amount how much to compensate as same as a 16 wheeler since this knowledge can only be obtained through EXPERIENCE, something they did not have.

I wanted to stay out of this debate, but your continual butchering of scientific observational methods are making my teeth itch.

You claim that they could not have piloted the aircraft accurately enough to hit the buildings because you have a hard time believing it. That's an argument from personal incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. Unfortunately for you, the planes were hijacked and they did hit the buildings.

This happened. Your own personal incredulity does not change what was observed. The airplanes were observed to crash into the buildings. Ergo, your conclusion is impossible--if the hijackers truly were not skilled enough to fly the planes into the towers, would they have hit the towers?

Derp.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The control surfaces on a larger aircraft handle just like those on a smaller aircraft. Airliners are designed to handle very easilly and confortably. They are designed for long distance flights to the pilot won't get tired fighting the airplane at all. They might turn a little wider than a smaller aricraft, but when your approach is 20 miles out or more, you have a well over a minute to correct your course in a nice easy arc.

You arguing the wrong points, it does not matter if a larger plane can be handled easily or not. I am pointing out that difference turning ratio of a Cessna and a 737 would be different and a person with no prior experience in flying that type of plane would not be able to compensate his mistakes.

If you do not like my 16 wheeler analogy try a Prius and a Ferrari. You are a novice driver training on a Prius and suddenly you are told you can drive a Ferrari.
You step on the gas pedal like you would on your Prius and you start dashing away too fast you are told to make a curve at a certain speed and you under/over steer since you have no idea how much grip the Farrari has and finally you are told to stop at a certain point you step on the brakes as you would on Prius and you come to a halt way before the line because braking characteristics are completely different.
Unless you have experience you would not be able to anticipate the exact differences to compensate, something they obviously did not have.

They may have been able to fly the plane but they certainly would not been able to achieve any predetermined task.

[Ithekro]

Flying an airplane is much easier than driving a car. At least in terms of the actual flying of the thing (if you can handle the up and down part). Turning is something you feel in your body as you do it. You don't turn hard in a small aircraft anyway (turning hard gives you a 2+g turn at 45+ degrees and you can feel it in your face). Turning a larger 757 takes about the same amount of turn on the controls to turn like a Cessna. The turn will not be as tight, but as mentioned, you have 20 miles to correct your course, plus how ever long it is from when you took over the plane to your destination to get a feel for the aircraft...and that doesn't take very long. (They also had to get the aircraft down from altitude if I recall correctly...I don't recall them being in control of the aircraft from takeoff, but took over after the planes were in the air on their way to cruising altitude).

None of these civilian craft are high preformance aircraft. You don't turn them like you do a car, nor do they turn like a jet fighter...they handle in a lazy way like one is out for a country drive on a gradually curving road. You turn the control about 30 degrees, wait until the plane is roughly 30 degrees as indicated on you turn indicator, level out the control, maybe pull back a little so you don't loose altitude. When you near your desired heading, turn the control 30 degrees the other way until you are flying level again and turn the controls back to level. If you want to target a location, look out the window until it is right in front of you. Correct as needed. You can see even farther the higher up you are, so you might even have as much as a 30 mile lead before you hit the target....if the target is large enough to see at that distance....and the World Trade Center Towers, has tall as they were, stood out...the Pentagon is a large uniquely shaped building that can also be seen at quite a distance from the air.

A seven year old can do that.

The reason flying an airplane is easier than driving a car is because aside from the ground, you don't have anything to run into most of the time in an airplane. With a car you are constantly having to stay in your lane of the road...not hitting other cars. Stopping when needed, and so on. In the air, you get to your altitude and at that point you basically can fly witout much worry. Keep a eye out for other airplanes and weather. Keep an eye on your map in case of restricted flight zones if there are any in your area, and more or less follow your flight plan. It was harder to learn how to drive than to fly. The hard part of flying is the techinal stuff (radio and navigation) and landing. Unless you have trouble with up and down movement...then you will have another sort of trouble.

Do I have a pilots license? No. Why? Because it is expensive to fly and I don't have the money, nor do I really have a place I would need to fly to often. My father has a license. He is a flight instructor. Before 9/11 we flew to by grandparents twice a year on holidays to avoid the traffic on Interstate 5 and Highway 101. Also it was a two hour flight as oppose to a seven hour drive. We did that since I was a year old. He doesn't fly much now because it got more expessive, and he didn't approve of the Federal Goverment's stance of civil aviation after 9/11 (the whole shooting you down thing). But mostly because it was expensive...it drove away flight students.


(Too much rant on my part is likely...apologies if this is too much)