[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[SOMERLED]

You are not a pilot are you? Your ideas are wrong on all topics. To the topic of flying you bring a special ability of zero knowledg. You have a perfect record, of being wrong. I doubt anyone agrees with you on many points, even die hard truthers.

I could teach a 10 year old kid how to fly from a plane taking off at Boston, get in the seat after 25 minutes, and find NYC. It could be as simple as fly heading 135 degrees, tune into the VOR 113.1, follow the arrow when it locks on and fly toward that pointer by lining it up under the lubber line. When you see NYC, pick your target and fly towards it.

I did this in a simulator the week after 9/11 to show kids how the terrorist were not very special, just killers. Sorry to rain on you parade of madness, but 19 terrorist did 9/11, and it took no special skills except a contempt for life and being too lazy to work for their goals in a peaceful way.

Is flying easy? Indubitably. Are there things only you pilot can do and save you butt? Indubitably.

Where and when did these killers switch the engines around, from JT9D - 7R4D's to CFM 56's and why has the government failed to investigate the matter?

 

[SpitfireIX]

You are not a pilot are you? Your ideas are wrong on all topics.

I have to disagree with you here. To quote Wolfgang Pauli, "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

 

[CurtC]

In 2001 a GPS was not a lot smaller than a house brick.

B.S. I bought my Magellan 315 in 1999, and it can fit in a shirt pocket. But no GPS was needed to navigate to NYC - they were less than a hundred miles away on a crystal-clear day! I've seen the buildings of Dallas from 60 miles away, easily, in a small plane that was not even very high. The terrorist pilots would have easily been able to see the city visually from there. But in case they were farther out when the takeover occurred, recall that they were not just ignorant yokels off the street, but had commercial pilot licenses.

The aircraft, a Boeing 737-900, equipped with Rockwell-Collins GLU-920 Multi-Mode receivers (MMR) with GLS software, utilized differential GPS corrections and precision approach path data uplinked from a Raytheon RAYNAV-4100 Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) ground facility at the Salt Lake City Airport. A series of autocoupled (hands-off) approaches, through touchdown and rollout, were conducted using two different runways.

Did you notice how I pointed out the words "reading comprehension" to you? Did you miss the part where it talked about the tests that were done in a 727-200 in August 2001? I even pointed that detail out for you and you still missed it: "The current flight testing was a continuation of Raytheon's LAAS ground station test program which also included flight tests in August 2001 with a FedEx Express Boeing 727-200 aircraft..."

 

[Corsair 115]

Stilletto heels, wooden dance floors and wooden decks, kamikazes?

You appear to have forgotten that your contention that kamikazes couldn't penetrate the wooden decks of USN aircraft carriers was proven wrong with photographic and documentary evidence.

 

[Corsair 115]

In 2001 a GPS was not a lot smaller than a house brick.

Why do you keep thinking GPS equipment was needed? It wasn't. A little reading and a bit of practice is all that's needed to learn how to navigate an aircraft enough to find a city.

At the moment do we have our hijackers with boxcutter in one pocket...

Why do you assume they were in their pockets? You are aware that passengers are allowed to carry small pieces of luggage with them into the cabin? Yes, there are size restrictions (it has to fit in either the overhead bin or under the seat in front of you) and there are amount restrictions (often two pieces of carry-on luggage were allowed but I think these days the limit is only one). But the point is you could, and still can, carry small luggage with you onto the aircraft.

I used to do this myself - on trips where I was only staying a few days at the destination, I'd take only a carry-on bag so I didn't have to wait around after arriving at the destination for checked luggage. Note also that carry-on luggage was x-rayed, not run through a metal detector.

So, you pack the carry-on luggage with the boxcutters (and items such as this were not prohibited in carry-on luggage prior to 9/11 - see my earlier post about carrying scissors). Then when it's time you retrieve the boxcutter(s) from the carry-on luggage. Simple.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

Where and when did these killers switch the engines around, from JT9D - 7R4D's to CFM 56's and why has the government failed to investigate the matter?

You have yet to establish that they were anything but JT9D. I noticed that you ignored my previous post where I asked how you determined the wreckage to be from a CFM56. I'm not going to accept some statements from proclaimed experts without reading their full statement on what criteria they applied to resolve the question. "Show your work" isn't only a requirement on test questions. (And FYI, I'm less interested in their full CV than their line of reasoning. Even a self-taught expert is worth listening to if he can outline how he arrives at a conclusion)

extension in mm = constant force in Newtons

Without context, that is a meaningless statement. A physical law is more than just an equation.

 

[gumboot]

A bullet has a pointed tip remember? Stilletto heels, wooden dance floors and wooden decks, kamikazes? I appreciate that it is quite some posts ago.

You obviously forgot the bit where we demonstrated your assertion that an WW2 Japanese fighter cannot penetrate the deck of a WW2 American aircraft carrier is totally wrong.

Remember my post about the USS Enterprise?

-Gumboot

 

[SOMERLED]

Nice copy/paste. Have you read your membership agreement? Perhaps you should because you've violated forum rules by not using the link and/or quote function in this post.

http://www.osamawasframed.com/dronetesting.html

There I did it for you. Now, do you have any idea what the above means and can you put it in laymans terms for us?

Certainly, Raytheon flew around a passenger jet by remote control, as I said in my first post.
If you wish anything more technical, allow me to refer you to Pilots for 9/11 truth.

 

[SOMERLED]

Is this just more of the, "no cave-dwelling primitives could have done this!!!" type thinking?

I mean... he's acting like the hijackers only spent five minutes planning this thing, like they were completely incapable of thinking ahead or planning or anticipating what they would need to do. Like this wasn't the big project of their lives, like they didn't devote YEARS to the task, like they didn't think they were doing God's own work. Like they were just sitting around the airport one day and just did it on impulse.

They learned to fly. They researched. They found a nation whose airline security was nearly non-existent. They were smart and creative and dedicated. We were lax and distracted and naive. 100% of the evidence supports the hijacking theory, 0% of the evidence supports any other.

What's so hard about this?

They were more than 'smart and creative'. I'm sure I'm leaving some things out here, but here is a list that puts them beyond the realms of fantasy.
1. They changed the engines of 175 in flight.
2. They prepped WTC 1,2, and 7 with explosives.
3. They got Norad to fly every which way but the right way.
4. They overflew the Pentagon by more than 30 ft, yet still managed to crash through a downstairs window.
5. It is about 30 ft from the captain's cap to the bottom of underslung engines. Yet they put the captain's cap through a downstairs window, without leaving the engines in the lawn. In fact, without marking the lawn at all.
6. They crashed a plane at Shanksville and left just about enough wreckage, to fill up the back of a pick up truck.
7. They allowed cell phones to work above 4,000 ft.
8. They got 4 flight crews to give up their planes without one of them sending out a mayday.
9. Mohammad Atta was so clever he had a passport that survived the fireball and fluttered down to the street in perfect condition. Passing on its way, the over 1,000 vapourised bodies that are still unaccounted for.
10. They flew through two rings of steel that protect DC and persuaded Cheney to ensure the defences stayed down. Either that, or they magically worked out whatever codes were in force to protect DC.
Finally UBL managed to do all this from his laptop, whilst he was having an operation in an american hospital in the middle east.
That's what you call a laptop.
ps,
The security forces are very good at finding things like Atta's passport, check this list out,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,669961,00.html
They also have a history of staging hijacks. Entebbe comes to mind.

 

[Brainache]

Certainly, Raytheon flew around a passenger jet by remote control, as I said in my first post.
If you wish anything more technical, allow me to refer you to Pilots for 9/11 truth.

I don't know if I should speak for Apatoid, but: HAHAHAHAHA

I think he is familiar with Mr Balsamo's work, as are we all and if you think those guys have all the answers, then I have to say sorry, but you are very much mistaken.

 

[SOMERLED]

You appear to have forgotten that your contention that kamikazes couldn't penetrate the wooden decks of USN aircraft carriers was proven wrong with photographic and documentary evidence.

Once or twice, two swallows don't make a summer. As a general rule no pointed tip = no entry.
I notice D Day is no longer on your agenda.

 

[SOMERLED]

You obviously forgot the bit where we demonstrated your assertion that an WW2 Japanese fighter cannot penetrate the deck of a WW2 American aircraft carrier is totally wrong.

Remember my post about the USS Enterprise?

-Gumboot

Allow me to refer you to my previous post.

 

[SOMERLED]

You have yet to establish that they were anything but JT9D. I noticed that you ignored my previous post where I asked how you determined the wreckage to be from a CFM56. I'm not going to accept some statements from proclaimed experts without reading their full statement on what criteria they applied to resolve the question. "Show your work" isn't only a requirement on test questions. (And FYI, I'm less interested in their full CV than their line of reasoning. Even a self-taught expert is worth listening to if he can outline how he arrives at a conclusion)


Without context, that is a meaningless statement. A physical law is more than just an equation.

For the first part of your post, allow me to refer you to my post No 1368.
The equation, far from being meaningless, represents a scientific law. As no one can recognise it as such, it is pointless going down that road.

 

[gmarshall]

I personally well remember metal detectors at O'Hare, Newark, what is now Reagan, Dulles, JFK and La Guardia well before 9/11.

You are most certainly correct. I've never gone through airport security without passing through a metal detector. The leatherman tool (with knife) was simply placed in the tray along my car keys and loose change so that I could pass the detector without setting it off. The knife was in plain site of airport security without any trouble since it met the current (and lax) restrictions of the day.

 

[pomeroo]

Where and when did these killers switch the engines around, from JT9D - 7R4D's to CFM 56's and why has the government failed to investigate the matter?

No engines were "switched around." Your claim is a falsehood.

You refuse to read Apathoid's paper that demolishes the imaginary scenario you've conjured up. Try this:

http://911myths.com/html/remote_control.html

 

[Belz...]

These maps that you are sure the hijackers can read. Who took those on board?

The pilots, maybe ? You know, the ones that may need it while flying the plane ?

Here is a website full of pilots

No, it's a website with just a few, one of which is unemployed. Gee, I wonder why.

I said the plane was modified in the Boeing hangar at Offutt AFB

How do you know the exact location ?

People cannot break steel with their hands.
Ergo, steel is stronger than both aluminium sheeting and bone.

Answer my points, Malcolm. ARE you aware that a hand CAN break wood AND that wood ca break a hand ? Yes or no, please.

You AGAIN ignored all other points in my post. Are you doing this deliberatly ? Are those points so difficult to answer ?

A Spanish double agent convinced the Nazis that the main invasion was going to take place at Calais, and that the Normandy attack was just a diversion.

I'm assuming that you are doing everything in your power to avoid having to answer the question proper: Was the ACTUAL invasion a hoax ? Yes or No ? And if it wasn't, how do you explain that, since it wasn't 100% to succeed ?

Would you kindly refer me to the particular post you mean, number ????
Thanking you in advance.

How' bout this one ?

 

[Belz...]

I would be grateful for a synopsis of the main point/points you are making in this post.

So you didn't even read the post, adressed to you ? No wonder you ignore most of the others' points.

I am not familiar with that word.

Then why did you use it ?

I will start with everyday usage. In other words, hypothetical notions of solid copper planes etc, do not occur in everyday life.

So what you're saying is that you are working with "common sense" and ignoring everything that you don't understand ?

A bullet has a pointed tip remember?

Not shotgun pellets.

1. They changed the engines of 175 in flight.

Again,

2. They prepped WTC 1,2, and 7 with explosives.

A job which would've taken months in the ideal conditions.

3. They got Norad to fly every which way but the right way.

Patently false.

4. They overflew the Pentagon by more than 30 ft, yet still managed to crash through a downstairs window.

Where the hell did you hear that ?

6. They crashed a plane at Shanksville and left just about enough wreckage, to fill up the back of a pick up truck.

Do you even research this stuff ? This claim's been shot down years ago.

7. They allowed cell phones to work above 4,000 ft.

Not surprising. Did you ever use a cell phone ?

8. They got 4 flight crews to give up their planes without one of them sending out a mayday.

It's hard sending a mayday when you've got a knife to your throat, isn't it ?

9. Mohammad Atta was so clever he had a passport that survived the fireball and fluttered down to the street in perfect condition.

What does this have to do with being smart ? Do you deny that a lot of small items survive such explosions ? Do you know ANYTHING about ANYTHING ?

Passing on its way, the over 1,000 vapourised bodies that are still unaccounted for.

Really ?

10. They flew through two rings of steel that protect DC and persuaded Cheney to ensure the defences stayed down. Either that, or they magically worked out whatever codes were in force to protect DC.

What "code" ? What are you talking about ? Are you making this up as you go ?

Finally UBL managed to do all this from his laptop, whilst he was having an operation in an american hospital in the middle east.

Again, this has been debunked quite a while ago. I don't think you've ever research anything. They teach that in school, you know.

 

[Belz...]

Once or twice, two swallows don't make a summer. As a general rule no pointed tip = no entry.

Right. Stupid shotgun inventor didn't know what he was doing.

I notice D Day is no longer on your agenda.

It's still on mine, and I'm still waiting for that answer from you.

 

[SOMERLED]

No engines were "switched around." Your claim is a falsehood.

You refuse to read Apathoid's paper that demolishes the imaginary scenario you've conjured up. Try this:

http://911myths.com/html/remote_control.html

I have read the paper and will be glad to go through it with you. The first point he makes is that a 757 has a feature that disallows pilot error, I quote,
"They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury... No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature".
Flight 77 was a 757, thus it could not have conducted the manouevres the govt said it did.
Foisted on your own petard, don't you think?

 

[ArmillarySphere]

For the first part of your post, allow me to refer you to my post No 1368.
The equation, far from being meaningless, represents a scientific law. As no one can recognise it as such, it is pointless going down that road.

Post #1368 contains NOTHING related to this issue. It's becoming increasingly clear that you have no interest in answering any questions whatsoever, and as such, conversating with you is an utter waste of time. Oh well - I had nothing better to do...