• 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.

NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

MM:
I don't care about some flight track (that could be off a few feet left or right, up or down) all I care about was what was left behind. The poles for instance. How did they get to be the way they were found if not by being hit by the plane? How about the damage to the building that was cataloged and witnessed by lots of regular people? How about the DNA of the passengers that was found inside the building? The list goes on. How many people would it take to fake all that? More then I believe possible.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
I have read reports from veteran pilots who claim that hitting the Towers
using a simulator was extremely difficult.
...
Click to expand...

You have read lies, and believed them. You did not believe them because they were credible, but because they confirm your delusions.

It isn't all that difficult to book time on a professional flight simulator. You can buy good home PC flight sims for few bucks.
You can even find flight instructors who will let you fly a real plane for half an hour. Might cost you a couple hundred bucks, but it is great fun.

Try one of these one day, and report back your experiences!

I have been on a real 707 simulator. Didn't try to hot a building of course, but found it is a lot easier to hit a target in a real plane than it is on a home PC flight sim, such as the Microsoft FS.

On the MSFS, I hit the Empire State Building with a 737 every time I try. Never missed once. No matter how fast or slow I go, no matter how high or low I come in. It is dead easy to hit a building with a plan. Any plane. It is as easy as crashing a car into a house.
 
R.Mackey said:
All this noise, and I still don't have an answer to my question.

I hope no one is surprised.
Click to expand...


I'm not surprised, no. Ryan Mackey: "There's nothing to debate" <--- hilarious Ronald Wieck (Yo Ron! :)) rants included.

R.Mackey said:
Even though it has no practical significance whatsoever, the semantic argument grows quite attractive when you don't have a snowball's chance in thermite of winning the technical argument.
Click to expand...


Listen up folks. An authority is speaking.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Not a courtroom Al.

Does that flightpath knock down the lightpoles?

NO.

Explain that and we can talk.

Until then, you are in denial.

MM
Click to expand...

Why should anyone explain that?

Physical evidence points to a SOC flight path.

A handful of witness testimony points to a NOC flight path.

NO witness testimony points to any plane flying over the Pentagon at the moment of impact.
 
Miragememories said:
I have read reports from veteran pilots who claim that hitting the Towers
using a simulator was extremely difficult.

Of course being God's gift to aviation, I'm sure you could hit a pea in its pod
in your sleep.

MM
Click to expand...

I'd like to read these reports. I could use some light reading.
 
Miragememories said:
A handful?

A thousand would never satisfy your dogma.

An easy view of a northern flightpath by 2 cops who are pro-OCT makes for a good case.

The idiots are those who succumb to what what they wish to believe and
continue to ignore evidence to the contrary.

MM
Click to expand...

That wasn't really much of a defense, but then again, there isn't much of one to be had when if comes to the CIT stuff.

TAM:)
 
DGM said:
T.A.M. I'm all for a productive debate. Just once I'd like to see one of them actually back-up what they claim is truth. After listening to BS, MM, Chris7, RedI and all the rest I'm beginning to hold little hope. I even thought for a moment Mr Derek might be able to show some sort of engineering chops, we all know how that's going.

Bottom line is, it's time for them to **** or get off the pot. I don't care if the argument is coming from a street bum or a garbage collector. If the argument is right it will stand on it's own merits for all to see. I wish they would just state their argument and stop the stupid redirecting questions.
Click to expand...

I agree. However, we must try our best to keep ourselves from sinking to their level. It has been hard at times, for all of us, and I am guilty on more then one occasion of not following this, but we still should try...don't you think.

TAM:)
 
Miragememories said:
A handful?

A thousand would never satisfy your dogma.

An easy view of a northern flightpath by 2 cops who are pro-OCT makes for a good case.

The idiots are those who succumb to what what they wish to believe and
continue to ignore evidence to the contrary.

MM
Click to expand...
Who say 77 impacted the Pentagon, and Deets forgot to analyze. Deets failed to take the FDR information and see CIT are liars who bend witness statements to their moronic flight path. You don't do flight procedures and fail to understand all the CIT draw flight paths are impossible to fly.

You don't need Deets, he does not use scientific skills to come up with his ideas, they are nonsensical BS. Where is Deets?

Evidence, you and Deets have the same bag of it! empty bag
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
A handful?

A thousand would never satisfy your dogma.

An easy view of a northern flightpath by 2 cops who are pro-OCT makes for a good case.

The idiots are those who succumb to what what they wish to believe and
continue to ignore evidence to the contrary.

MM
Click to expand...

CIT - find a number of witnesses, specifically selected for their possible conflicting memories of where the plane flew. Ask them leading questions. Produce for the general public EDITED videos with only SEGMENTS of the interviews included. Ask these leading questions YEARS later, about a moment in time that was incredibly brief, and faded with time, and then piece together this story of a NORTH of CITGO flight path.


Ok, tell me what part of the above you disagree with. The above is the ENTIRETY of the CIT case, that you claim is STRONG and SOLID.

TAM:)
 
Childlike Empress said:
I'm not surprised, no. Ryan Mackey: "There's nothing to debate" <--- hilarious Ronald Wieck (Yo Ron! :)) rants included.




Listen up folks. An authority is speaking.
Click to expand...
Deets has delusions like CIT, there is nothing to debate.

The FDR proves CIT wrong - public domain
The RADAR data proves CIT wrong - public domain
The witnesses all point to the south flight path, the same flight path in the FDR.

How do you debate idiotic ideas based on no evidence like CIT has? Deets did no research, he talks BS. Why are only 0.001 percent of all engineers nuts on 911 issues?

Deets ran away because his ideas are delusions. Better run after your new expert and learn why he has nothing to contribute, except ideas, when researched, reveal he has no clue; like all of 911 truth.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
I agree. However, we must try our best to keep ourselves from sinking to their level. It has been hard at times, for all of us, and I am guilty on more then one occasion of not following this, but we still should try...don't you think.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Absolutely! I'm trying to limit myself to just pointing out the obvious. How many people would it take to be "in on it" and how do you explain the physical evidence are prime examples.

I'm thinking of starting a thread for "truthers" to state and justify how many people it would need to have knowledge of and be in on their brand of 'truth" but, I doubt I'd get a reasoned response.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
You expect anything better from "I am recording our conversations" Captain Bob?

TAM:mad:
Click to expand...

Is he doing that again? Figures.

I still don't have an answer to my question. A very, very simple one, and it's even on topic. Not holding my breath.
 
R.Mackey said:
Is he doing that again? Figures.

I still don't have an answer to my question. A very, very simple one, and it's even on topic. Not holding my breath.
Click to expand...


Mr Deets seems to be still processing the "culture" shock. Who can blame him.

What's with my proposal, would you be willing to discuss this topic in a moderated thread with Mr. Deets? And stick it to him for all of us to see and verify?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom