• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is one reason I view the Pentagon attack as the self-injury to make the criminal look like a victim...
You may speculate all you like, reverse-engineer all you like, doubt all you like, but until you present proof of your allegations you simply have nothing. Or next to it.

Considering what alternative-9/11-conspiracy theorists propose would be one of the most complex undertakings of its kind -- not only to plan, but to implement, and continue to cover-up -- evidence and proof should be dropping from the trees like over-ripe apples. That it isn't might tell you something.

Welcome to the forum.
 
This is one reason I view the Pentagon attack as the self-injury to make the criminal look like a victim. I think we have three strikes in a "one strike and you're out" situation:

1: The alleged hijackers attempted the attack in this mode (with a high risk of mission failure if they hit the ground instead) instead of diving into the building (possibly at an angle, 30 degrees perhaps) -- the straightforward attack.

2: They succeeded, despite being poor pilots, without even touching the ground.

3: They hit the Pentagon from the horizontal, right where it would do by far the least damage -- a spot under construction, nearly empty.

One question they didn't consider is whether a real terrorist would attack this way.
John:

*deep breath*

Not a pilot, are you?

Read Here. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

The map at the end of the article seems to be oriented roughly "north top south bottom."
(See this map. http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=Washington,+DC The far left face of the Pentagon, the Western Face, is the one that got hit. Zoom in if you need to to match that map with the one below. On the Google map, NOrth is top of screen, South is bottoms of screen)



A note, regarding Hanjour: "Even so, those few who did make statements regarding pilot ability indicate that Hanjour flew in a somewhat erratic manner as one would expect"

For openers, your last misunderstanding first.

Four Real Terrorist teams did just that, plan and attack (oops, one team was foiled in PA) buildings with airliners. What is the "would a real terrorist" line, Mister True Scotsman? A suicide attack with an airplane is sort of like a huge, flying car bomb, conceptually. Real terrorists use car bombs all the time. These guys thought big.

Point 1: Pentagon is a short squat building, unlike WTC which is a tall building. As you note, that makes it a tricky target. This "inexperienced-in-757's-pilot" needed to attack the building. He could only be sure to hit it by maintaining control of the aircraft. That means he'd want to fly at an airspeed he could control. Above a certain airspeed, you can start to lose control authority due to aerodynamic loading, not to mention that as airspeed approaches Mach 1 near sea level (DC is less than 1000' above sea level) in an airliner, the plane will likely start to crack up.

So, from the get to, the 60-90 degree vertical dive is a non starter. His odds of aiming it perfectly were very small in that profile, since he was going to fly by hand, and any correction in close woud be amplified by too much airspeed and lift on the wings . . . if the plane didn't crack up before impact.

I'd suggest he'd need a 10-20 degree nose down attitude (10-20 degree dive angle in other words) to ensure his ability to control (up to the last few seconds) the trajectory of the plane, to ensure he didn't over shoot, and ensure he didn't lose flight control effectiveness by exceeding design velocity.

Had he landed in the middle of the building, an empty space, he'd probably have done less damaage. He had to pick a target, so he targeted the West face of the building.

He performed a very straightforward attack, I don't understand your assertion that he did not. If he had gone too fast, even at a low angle of approach, any last minute correction that was an over correction would have caused a ballooning effect, common in a flare maneuver, or in any abrupt raising of the nose with a lot of airspeed on, and thus an overshoot/miss of the Pentagon.

2. The reason he hit his target, in my professional opinion as a pilot, is that he didn't overload his lightweight pilot ass -- unlike what you are doing with your reasoning power in this conversation. He chose a profile that allowed him to control the aircraft within his talent level right up to impact. He succeeded.

3. What makes you think they knew which wing was under construction? I'd have to look at a chart, but Rosslyn, near the Pentagon to the north (see the map) has a lot of high rises. Dumb idea to approach from that side and risk a miss. I'd suggest to you that they chose an approach path (well ahead of time) that allowed the pilot to have the least possible trouble with obstacles, and to approach from the West (where 77 was going to come from in the first place) which is the side of the Potomac River away from Washington DC. (Pentagon is in Virginia)

Summary: He was a greenhorn in the 757, so he built a plan that maximized his odds for mission accomplishment.

DR
 
Last edited:
The Mitsubishi A6M Zero is significantly harder to fly than a modern airliner, yet throughout the latter days of World War 2 the Japanese managed to train hundreds of pilots in a very short space of time.
I will disagree with you here. I am speaking as a pilot. A small single seat plane is generally far easier to maneuver than a bloody big bus with wings. More responsive. The Zero was nothing if not maneuverable. Stick and rudderwise, your claim does not counter John's point.
These Kamakaze pilots, if they were not shot down, were usually successful in hitting their targets - the largest ships; Essex class Carriers and Iowa class Battleships, are both significantly smaller than the Pentagon.
-Andrew
Good point on the ships being smaller targets. At the speed differential between shp and plane, it becomes an exercise in relative motion. The ship becomes a fixed point in your frame of reference, and you fly to it, so it is almost like hitting a building. (Or in my case, NOT hitting a building!!!) .

Land a few on a ship, and you'll see what I mean. :D

DR
 
Ok, just got the new RS(zep cover), in the post! There is an article on the"Eco-Radical Underground".Nice set of lads.Reminded me of "The Weather Underground".That other group of A holes from the 70's. Which led me to ponder this! How long till the CT crowd goes "V" for Vendetta, or vegetable in their cases?
I can just see the sea of pimples storming the White House. Hell,.. Cheney is packen, might be fun after all!
Just Thoughts!


DT
 
Last edited:
I will disagree with you here. I am speaking as a pilot. A small single seat plane is generally far easier to maneuver than a bloody big bus with wings. More responsive. The Zero was nothing if not maneuverable. Stick and rudderwise, your claim does not counter John's point.


Sorry, I wasn't claiming it was more maneouverable. The 9/11 attacks did not require any significant level of maneouverability.

But A modern airliner is easier, in general, to fly. The automated systems, the warning alarms, the auto-corrections on the control column, navigations systems, etc, all make flying one easy.

Not so for a WW2 era fighter aircraft. (Not to mention WW2 era pilots didn't have the luxury of flight simulators or "Microsoft Flight Simulator" with which to learn how to fly their aircraft and specifically practise their bombing missions... (Microsoft Pacific Theatre Prediction Simulator '43 edition?)


Good point on the ships being smaller targets.


People grossly underestimate the size of the Pentagon, in my experience.

One outside wall of the Pentagon was considerably longer than both the Essex carriers and Iowa battleships, and of course the Pentagon has FIVE sides.

The hijackers also had the advantage of knowing where their targets were in advance, and having geographic features to follow.

-Andrew
 
Marvel at the debate skills of the CT. His challenge:

I`m loosing my patience here.
I just suggested we appoint all critics to our board of directors and dont ban anyone.

As for ignore the engineering comminity, well you obviously ignored my profile as I`m an undergraduate mechanical engineer in Oxford. I am part of the engineering establishment and am willing to take head on ANY challenge you or anyone else can provide on any mathematical basis (your treading on thin ice there as my maths score was 95% last semester).

So BRING IT ON!

Give me your best and I`ll confidently cut you both to shreds using materials science, logic, mathematics and physics before your fingers have finished typing.

Come on and HIT ME!!
I offer the official report as my evidence. He makes some points, I counter his points. His response?


Which university
I tell him, and that I studied automotive engineering

Perhaps you might explain to me the various differences between centrifugal supercharging versus a roots rotor arrangement.
I refuse, because I can find the answer on How Stuff Works.com, so it proves nothing.

You're rumbled my friend.

You should have been able to answer that immidaiately.

Instead you`ve given youself a get out clause of ANY technical questioning.

I have no interest in discussions with those who mislead others deliberately.

Goodbye.

PS try to find the reciept for that degree chap, I`d get a refund if I were you.
I ask him to respond to my points, he posts pictures of weasels.

This weasel is VERY interesting,

Note his posture
icon_cool.gif


Study his determined demeanor!
icon_razz.gif
Check it out:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=16322#16322
 
I see they finally figured this out

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10134

dylan avery says....
Hanjour was always identified as the fat, bearded man in the dark blue/green shirt and slacks.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...162333.photogallery?coll=chi-news-hed&index=4 (Fixed)

Incorrect. NBC had it right years ago.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5485376

Watch the video
http://www.911myths.com/HanjourDullesNBC.wmv
Also see
http://www.911myths.com/html/hanjour_video.html

If someone wants to post this there, go ahead.
More great research from the LC gang.
 
Last edited:
Any One Looking For The "Scholars"??
From An ATS Loud mouth!
there are some people over at physorg.com that would welcome debate on your 'pages' of explanations(i, being one of them). there is a thread there in the 'off topic' section, called, '911 events - new thread'. some of the the scholars for 911 truth hang out there once in a while, so it won't be over everyone's head.

Have no idea if this is true.Anyone hit this spot?
 
1: The alleged hijackers attempted the attack in this mode (with a high risk of mission failure if they hit the ground instead) instead of diving into the building (possibly at an angle, 30 degrees perhaps) -- the straightforward attack.

One general point to make about mission failure. Of course, they had the Pentagon as a specific target but if they missed, could the whole thing be dismissed as failure? From the terrorist point of view, crashing an aircraft into any part of the capital city of your enemy must be considered a successful mission. From the moment they gained control of the aircraft, they couldn't lose.
 
Gravy
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 63

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:18 am Post subject:
Do me next! Do me next!

------------------------------

Good luck with that, Gravy.

IronSnot did me himself!

I'll profile you Gravy. (although I'm not sure that's what you asked for)

Self loathing Canadian, young, sexually repressed, Tory lover, fantasy games developer.

How's that?
0 for 6. Your psychic skills need honing!
 
Sorry for the late response, but that's one of the many pages of stark raving insanity on http://www.wiolawapress.com you're referring to. The whole page is crazy stuff with photoshop filters like that; that's her whole shtick. Here's two WTC-specific pages:

http://www.wiolawapress.com/signature.htm
http://www.wiolawapress.com/wtc.htm


hahahaha! wow....

1) How has the conclusion that no evidence has been found for alternative hypotheses like CD by means of explosives been obtained?

Brumsen, this has been answered already by a link posted 2 pages back but
, similar to "Proof of god", there is none. Nothing found leads them to conclude anything towards a CD (God). However people will insist...

Its simply that there is no evidence. They did not start out by saying "we think this happened and thus we will look to see if the evidence exists!" - thats how a CT works. They conclude the results and every experiement leads to it.

I would assume, as per good ol scientific method, they gathered the data, drew conclusions, tested, etc etc and finally came up with a plausible and verifyable conclusion. This was peer reviewed and thus, backed up by a plethora of academics.

My thoughts.
 
wow, thats all i can say to the lizard whatzit

long story short, she takes this image
signature_webfairyoriginal.jpg


she zooms in on whatever that is next to towers, enhances edges, zooms, enhances, zooms enhances, and claims to see lizard people and a man in a military haircut flying that "ship"
 
Abby, tell them to watch the video. They don't get it yet....its not in the article. Its in the video to the right side.
 
Thanks, Kent.

Have now clarified.

ETA: For all the work Avery has put into 'research' in this thing, I'm shocked that he made such a mistake.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom