Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[roundhead]

The referenced turn was a descending standard rate (approximately) turn that is taught to pilots from day one of their training. It is the normal way of getting from altitude to traffic pattern altitude prior to commencing an approach for landing. The turn to landing is also a descending standard rate turn. Since most aircraft land after flying it's safe to say that a licensed pilot had made a similar type turn perhaps thousands of time in accumulating 600 hours of flying turn.

The Pilot of AA 77 CRASHED. In spite of your ineptitude at understanding this, I'd guess even you could do it the first you tried!

The above premise is debunkable, easily, by the statement, and by seemingly a concensus of Air Traffic Controllers watching that flight who have been oft quoted as staing , and i paraphrase " we controllers ALL thought it was a military plane"....refering to the maneuver he made descending.
I am sure you are aware of the direct quote.

So that was hardly ORDINARY, or something that happened often. It was in fact REMARKABLE, and noteworthy, even to those who watch planes daily for a living.

 

[Reheat]

What's the problem with all that?
Dave

How dare you introduce a plausible scenario into this discussion.

 

[RedIbis]

The referenced turn was a descending standard rate (approximately) turn that is taught to pilots from day one of their training. It is the normal way of getting from altitude to traffic pattern altitude prior to commencing an approach for landing. The turn to landing is also a descending standard rate turn. Since most aircraft land after flying it's safe to say that a licensed pilot had made a similar type turn perhaps thousands of time in accumulating 600 hours of flying turn.

The Pilot of AA 77 CRASHED. In spite of your ineptitude at understanding this, I'd guess even you could do it the first you tried!

Aside from the cheap shot at the end I appreciate the post. I'm in no position to debate what is a standard rate of descent. Regardless, your statement that

Since most aircraft land after flying it's safe to say that a licensed pilot had made a similar type turn perhaps thousands of time in accumulating 600 hours of flying turn.

begs the question, do we know if Hanjour made such a turn thousands of times? One thing I do know, quite a few people warned the FAA that this guy had no business getting his license. This comment was made by an instructor as late as March, 2001

Student made numerous errors during performance… including a lack of understanding of some basic concepts… Some of the concepts involved in large jet systems cannot be fully comprehended by someone with only small prop plane experience.” [US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; Alexandria Division, 7/31/2006 ]

 

[beachnut]

This may be true, but I don't think anyone can say what Hanjour pulled off was easy. There's still the matter of the 320-degree turn he had to pull off while descending 7,000 feet.

A normal turn, an easy turn, all done while the plane was going a 300 KIAS (+-30 knots). I have yet to find pilots who think 9/11 was hard. There are only 0.001 percent of all pilots who believe your failed ideas. Good job! How did you miss the 99.99 percent real pilot ideas? You are with the failed pilots, 0.001 percent. Oops, I think it is 0.0001 percent. What percentage of all pilots do you have on your side.

The instructor who flew with Hani said he could do 9/11! I think you should gain knowledge on the subject before you post failed statements. Not a single fact you present supports your idea.

The turn was normal, loosing the altitude was normal. When will you figure out 9/11?

Making up ideas Hani could not do it is pure ignorance. Got knowledge. You are sounding like Charlie Sheen, he failed to finish high school, what is your excuse, what is roundhead excuse for being so full of false information.

 

[Dave Rogers]

To stray a little, all the highjack pilots were poor , and did remarkable things.

As i think the Govt was to some (unsure how much)involved in the plot, it seems unlikely they would risk having poor pilots at the helm for such important tasks.

That's where our world views diverge rather sharply. If you start from the assumption that the Government was involved, then the hijackers appear too unskilled to be trusted, so remote control must be invoked, leading to the conclusion that the Government was involved. But that's a circular argument. If you start from the possibility that al-Qaeda was the prime and sole mover of events, then their aim was to execute a symbolic attack with significant loss of life, and simply crashing all four airliners would have been a limited success. Therefore, there's nothing anomalous about al-Qaeda using poor pilots.

As for the "remarkable things", Mohammed Atta flew a plane straight and level into the North Tower; nothing too hard there, people with no piloting experience have done it repeatedly in a simulator. The pilot of flight 175 nearly messed up a simple straight and level approach to the South Tower, suggesting that he wasn't very good. Hani Hanjour came in too high to the Pentagon, made a very uneven turn (the bank angles have been posted here, and they were all over the map), and just managed to hit the biggest office building in the world. And the only thing Ziad Jarrah managed to hit was the ground.

These are not holes in the official story. They're simply manifestations of your own choice to disbelieve it, and nobody with any objectivity can mistake them for anything else.

Dave

 

[roundhead]

Sure, crashing an airplane is very extraordinary! Most pilots don't do that.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1840748075c97c9b2a.jpg[/qimg]

Ah, but you left out something didnt you??

He flew a plane he had even sat in hundreds of miles, convinced a war hero to leave the controls, turned off the transponder, made a "military acrobatic manuever", clipped light poles, put a jet a few feet off the deack ,and hit exactly what he was aiming at.
A few important points to ponder, wouldnt you say.

Thank God the Japanese pilots in WW2 had problems with small manueverable planes hitting more of our aircraft carriers that they did. In planes they had actually been up in before.


Not to mention, unlike the Japanese, Hani had to attck the most heavily defended building in the world with his transponder off, evade the worlds greatest airforce, on the lookout for such things, all while probably eating a pulled pork sandwich.

Again, quite a day for Hani.

Edit, i almost forgot. We were also told by our leading General, that because of wargames, we were even MORE prepared for intruders than we might normally have been expected to be.

One wonders if OBL gave Hani a deretive of the Distinguished flying cross (posthumously of course)for his exploits.

You guys make me giggle with your official lie sucking premises. Truly.

 

[Reheat]

The above premise is debunkable, easily, by the statement, and by seemingly a concensus of Air Traffic Controllers watching that flight who have been oft quoted as staing , and i paraphrase " we controllers ALL thought it was a military plane"....refering to the maneuver he made descending.
I am sure you are aware of the direct quote.

So that was hardly ORDINARY, or something that happened often. It was in fact REMARKABLE, and noteworthy, even to those who watch planes daily for a living.

Horse hockey. It is quite obvious to me and everyone else capable of understanding the ATC comments that they thought it was military because of the excessive speed below 10,000'.

I know you've been told this before and you've ignored it. It's obvious you're not a pilot and don't know what you're talking about, so why do you keep arguing about this issue with those who are. That's a rhetorical question as I know why you keep arguing, no need to respond, YOU FAIL.

 

[RedIbis]

A normal turn, an easy turn, all done while the plane was going a 300 KIAS (+-30 knots). I have yet to find pilots who think 9/11 was hard. There are only 0.001 percent of all pilots who believe your failed ideas. Good job! How did you miss the 99.99 percent real pilot ideas? You are with the failed pilots, 0.001 percent. Oops, I think it is 0.0001 percent. What percentage of all pilots do you have on your side.

The instructor who flew with Hani said he could do 9/11! I think you should gain knowledge on the subject before you post failed statements. Not a single fact you present supports your idea.

The turn was normal, loosing the altitude was normal. When will you figure out 9/11?

Making up ideas Hani could not do it is pure ignorance. Got knowledge. You are sounding like Charlie Sheen, he failed to finish high school, what is your excuse, what is roundhead excuse for being so full of false information.

What is your excuse for not ending a question with a question mark?

 

[Reheat]

One thing I do know, quite a few people warned the FAA that this guy had no business getting his license. This comment was made by an instructor as late as March, 2001

Was this the same instructor who said he thought Hani was capable of doing what he did, or was it a different one?

 

[roundhead]

Was this the same instructor who said he thought Hani was capable of doing what he did, or was it a different one?

DONT LIE. Please. the guy you cite said only he was cabable of hitting a building. That guy didnt even fly with him. He said ZERO about him flying hundreds of miles and striking the Pentagon.

Those that did fly with him wouldnt rent him a plane.

Another instructor (commenting on him hitting the Pentagon)said he found it"incredible to this day".... That is way more "on point"

You lie, and you fail.


If the best you can do is cherrypick quotes that STILL dont buttress you extremely weak arguement, i feel for ya, bud.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ah, but you left out something didnt you??

He flew a plane he had bever sat in hundreds of miles, convinced a war hero to leave the controls, turned off the transponder, made a "military acrobatic manuever", clipped light poles, put a jet a few feet off the deack ,and hit exactly what he was aiming at.
A few important points to ponder, wouldnt you say.

Well, when he obtained his commercial pilot's license, they may have checked whether he could fly a plane straight and level on a known heading. The war hero in question could have been persuaded to leave the controls by threatening to kill someone else, as I suggested above. Turning off a transponder, I suspect even I could do; just look for the panel labelled "Transponder" and a switch labelled "On/Off". It ain't brain surgery. Your "military acrobatic manuever" (why is that in quotes when you just made it up?) never existed; Hanjour's turn was remarkable because it was dangerous, the mark of a bad pilot, not a good one. And as for hitting what he was aiming at, it was very, very large.

Thank God the Japanese pilots in WW2 had problems with small manueverable planes hitting more of our aircraft carriers that they did. In planes they had actually been up in before.

What a stupid comment. The whole point of the Japanese using Kamikaze attacks was that their pilots had little or no training, and could barely fly their planes at all. If they'd been any good, it would have made much more sense to give them conventional bombs and let them fly two missions instead of one.

Not to mention, unlike the Japanese, Hani had to attck the most heavily defended building in the world with his transponder off, evade the worlds greatest airforce, on the lookout for such things, all while probably eating a pulled pork sandwich.

This "most heavily defended building in the world" stuff is simple truther fantasy. The Pentagon wasn't ready for an attack, firing large quantities of 20mm and 40mm AA at Hanjour, and zigzagging wildly to make itself harder to hit; yet the incompetent Japanese pilots, attacking through a barrage of shellfire against a maneuvering enemy, got about a 15% hit rate. Hanjour was better trained and had a much easier target to hit. That's obvious to anyone who doesn't desperately want to disbelieve it.

I suggest you read some history books. Failing that, any kind of book.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

The above premise is debunkable, easily, by the statement, and by seemingly a concensus of Air Traffic Controllers watching that flight who have been oft quoted as staing , and i paraphrase " we controllers ALL thought it was a military plane"....refering to the maneuver he made descending.
I am sure you are aware of the direct quote.

So that was hardly ORDINARY, or something that happened often. It was in fact REMARKABLE, and noteworthy, even to those who watch planes daily for a living.

On the Radar Scope the plane was going 300 KIAS, faster than the traffic they are use to seeing, and not under any ATC control. Both are dangerous for reasons you fail to comprehend. Your failed ideas are based on hearsay you interpret wrong.

Kind of makes your ideas double wrong! Wrong, wrong.

Sorry, the speed limit below 10,000 feet is 250 KIAS, the terrorist was going 300 KIAS, and did a turn over an airport area! The pilot never slowed down to 180 to 200 KIAS, most planes they are use to seeing in their area do! Sort of like the highway patrol saying you are a racecar driver when you are doing 90 mph in a 75 to 60 mph zone. Why are you unable to figure out flying? You should gain some knowledge on this subject, to a pilot you are showing ultimate ignorance of flying procedure, and present cherry picked ideas shown to be wrong years ago.

The military have waivers for some planes to go over the 250 KIAS airspeed! This is why a plane going 300 KIAS would be called a military flight. It was not the precision (there was no precision), it was the speed and the UNCONTROLLED actions. And you repeating without knowledge, is exposing your lack of knowledge.

 

[Dave Rogers]

DONT LIE. Please. the guy you cite said only he was cabable of hitting a building. That guy didnt even fly with him. He said ZERO about him flying hundreds of miles and striking the Pentagon.

Those that did fly with him wouldnt rent him a plane.

What's so hard about flying hundreds of miles for someone with 300 hours simulator time and a commercial pilot's license? Set the altitude and heading, turn on the autopilot, and wait. Did I miss something?

And don't lie yourself. Marcel Bernard, the instructor who wouldn't rent him a plane after flying with him, was the same person who said he could have hit the Pentagon. I already told you that, in a post you replied to, so don't try to pretend you didn't know.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

Was this the same instructor who said he thought Hani was capable of doing what he did, or was it a different one?

I don't know. Where's the link to the rest of what he said? I didn't see much else in NYTimes article.

 

[Drudgewire]

DONT LIE. Please. the guy you cite said only he was cabable of hitting a building. That guy didnt even fly with him. He said ZERO about him flying hundreds of miles and striking the Pentagon.

Those that did fly with him wouldnt rent him a plane.

You realize the hard part of flying is taking off and landing, right? Cruising and crashing aren't exactly something you have to be an ace to pull off.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Welcome to the Forum.

from a minimum energy perspective, the absolute optimal placement would be to cut columns of a single floor at about the 98-100th level. The steel at this elevation requires about 300 pounds of TNT to destroy, if we could assume 100% efficiency. In practice, even with perfect access to the steel, we are more likely to see efficiencies in the 10-25% range, so to be safe, let's call it 1200 pounds of TNT.
QUOTE]

FYI - A guy who claims to be ex military says that it would take about 137 lbs of lsc per floor to sever all 47 columns. I have no reason to doubt his figures since he's NOT a troofer. He's also of the opinion that this much explosive couldn't help but be noticed....

www dot abovetopsecret dot com/forum/thread315607/pg8#pid3719480

he's describing linear shape charges. silent? no, but significantly quieter than say...a sachel charge. an LSC typically is made of an RDX based explosive and to cut up to 40mm of steel they are loaded to around 425g/m. now, that doesnt sound like much but using the "leaked" copies of the wtc blueprints i calculated that it would take 172lbs/floor worth of LSC's (HE yeild not gross weight) to sever all 47 core columns. so yeah, still going to be a noticable boom to most of manhattan, but i did outline all of this in the debate thread i linked to above.

 

[roundhead]

Well, when he obtained his commercial pilot's license, they may have checked whether he could fly a plane straight and level on a known heading. The war hero in question could have been persuaded to leave the controls by threatening to kill someone else, as I suggested above. Turning off a transponder, I suspect even I could do; just look for the panel labelled "Transponder" and a switch labelled "On/Off". It ain't brain surgery. Your "military acrobatic manuever" (why is that in quotes when you just made it up?) never existed; Hanjour's turn was remarkable because it was dangerous, the mark of a bad pilot, not a good one. And as for hitting what he was aiming at, it was very, very large.



What a stupid comment. The whole point of the Japanese using Kamikaze attacks was that their pilots had little or no training, and could barely fly their planes at all. If they'd been any good, it would have made much more sense to give them conventional bombs and let them fly two missions instead of one.



This "most heavily defended building in the world" stuff is simple truther fantasy. The Pentagon wasn't ready for an attack, firing large quantities of 20mm and 40mm AA at Hanjour, and zigzagging wildly to make itself harder to hit; yet the incompetent Japanese pilots, attacking through a barrage of shellfire against a maneuvering enemy, got about a 15% hit rate. Hanjour was better trained and had a much easier target to hit. That's obvious to anyone who doesn't desperately want to disbelieve it.

I suggest you read some history books. Failing that, any kind of book.

Dave

Olsen said nothing about anybody having been killed.

The Pentagon was protected by a fighter base very close by.

Kamikazee pilots had at least flown those Zero's before, if only very little.
As far as we know, Hani had never even sat in a 757 simulator. And he had definately NEVER, Even ONCE ever flown a 757.


In fact, i invite you to show me proof of who signed off on that commercial license, and or where he got it. The FBI hasnt, that i am aware of

I give you that "Military" and "Acrobatic manuever" havent been quoted together, but they have both been quoted by EXPERTS to describe portions of that flight.


Regarding the transponder ... I quote the Washington Post:

Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious.



Consider also, the consequences of turning off that transponder. Once a plane does that, it immediately raises the eyebrow of MILITARY radars.
Qite interesting that three planes went to the trouble to ALERT the military they were highjacks. Almost saying"shoot me down if you can". And at the same time basically taking civilian radar somewhat out of the loop.

Quote:

For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said [ex-commercial pilot Russ] Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying. [LewisNews]





Quote:

Confirm this by visiting the Canadian Defense website again, "Canada-United States Defense Regulations."

http://www.dnd.ca/menu/canada-us/bg00.010_e.htm
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/norad

"NORAD uses a network of ground-based radars, sensors and fighter jets to detect, intercept and, if necessary, engage any threats to the continent."

Transponders help to filter out all identifiable aircraft for NORAD and allow them to focus on those craft that are unidentified. An aircraft flying without a transponder gets special attention. NORAD must have known when each of the transponders in the four "suicide" jets was turned off, and must have known immediately. At all times, NORAD must have known the location of each of the four planes. (See expanded discussion of NORAD's surveillance capabilities in Part II, in section "NORAD vs. FAA — Who Sees What?" http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend2.html .)

Before we go any further, let us consider the implications of the so-called hijackers/suicide pilots turning off the transponders. If the "hijackers" knew enough about transponders to shut them off, they surely must have known the aircraft could be tracked and located by conventional radar. Why, then, did the "hijackers" turn off the transponders? There's a question to ponder.

 

[pomeroo]

Strawman again Pomeroo. I have never rejected the identification of the hijackers. If you want to understand the issues I feel warrant a new investigation, check out the Open Letter to Richard Gage thread. Mackey asked. I answered.

I asked here and in a separate thread I started why the massive, multi-agency investigation that identified the hijackers hadn't solved the case. Evidently, you don't think it did or else you wouldn't waste so much time satisfying yourself that fantastic, absurd myths invented to deny reality are without merit. If hijackers really crashed planes into the Twin Towers, all the speculation about explosives that could not have been planted, in the judgment of demolition experts, looks every bit as silly as it is.

ETA: I'm so used to your ranting that I missed the biggest STRAWMAN ever. Accusing me of hating my country is DISPICABLE. Given all your strawman attacks, one wonders if you really have anything to substantial to say.

This is not the politics forum, as I'm often reminded. Perhaps you'd prefer to be described as someone who reflexively opposes American foreign policy.

 

[pomeroo]

1.By ANY account, Hani was an extremely poor pilot. Even as recently as several weeks before 9/11. He couldnt even rent a Cessna.
2.According to PUBLISHED reports, Burlingame was herded to the back of the plane, WITHOUT, obviously, his throat cut.


Get YOUR facts straight, before spewing unsupported outright lies.

I wonder how many times you've been asked to read this essay. It's one thing to acknowledge that you are incapable of processing information, but it's another to pretend that the information doesn't exist:

http://911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

 

[pomeroo]

The government placed great weight, and used the weight of this "boxcutter" quote by Olsen to great propaganda effect.

My intention is to poke enough holes in the official story to be able to call for a new and independant investigation of 9/11. I think the footing is and has been there to support such an effort.

In our above debate, we have two points. A very poor pilot doing extraordinary things. And an experienced war hero giving up the reigns without issuing a warning to the ground, and seemingly unwounded.
Olsen did say"Pilot" so i will take that at face value, because he in fact was the pilot.

I am not a lawyer, my opinion is that the account that is published doesnt pass the common sense self test.

To stray a little, all the highjack pilots were poor , and did remarkable things.

As i think the Govt was to some (unsure how much)involved in the plot, it seems unlikely they would risk having poor pilots at the helm for such important tasks.

The shock and awe at the Towers was in my mind a critical part of bringing national unity behind subsequent events.

Its my opinion that the controls of all 9/11 planes were not in the hands of anybody on those planes (at some point) in those flights. I believe the highjackers were unaware of this.
This would of course, if true, render the exact same outcome, with of course a way greater chance of sucess.

Ah, now I understand the game. I'm supposed to post a link to Apathoid's paper, which destroys the myth of the remote-controlled Boeing airliners. You've heard it mentioned a few hundred times, your inability to read it notwithstanding:

http://911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf