NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[beachnut]

"The only plane to be in an area of primary non-coverage was AAL77," according to andrewkornkven (at pilots for 9/11 truth forum)

Robin Hordon (Retired ATC Boston) follows up with an explanation that includes the statement, "nobody ever positively re-identified the eastbound target noticed west of Dulles by O'Brien as being AA77, it has only been presumed as such."

These are at: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t8803.html

Pilots for truth are morons, they can't hit buildings in a simulator. Bad pilots.

You are wrong, I showed you RADAR returns for 77 from takeoff to Pentagon. You are wrong on this because you fail to do your own research. You listen to idiots who lie and sell those lies on DVD.

77 was on RADAR from take off to crash.

Pay attention, here is the RADAR for 77, you spread lies and false information.

Your fantasy claims bring great shame on NASA and the United States.

Pilots for Truth, with special 11.2g moron math by Balsamo, still posted, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html , for over 3 years, moron math. You found the biggest nuts on 911 issues and use them as your source for lies, hearsay, and delusions. The leader of Pilots for truth is not an airline pilot, you hooked up with a Tim McVeigh like nut on 911 issues.

 

[Reheat]

"The only plane to be in an area of primary non-coverage was AAL77," according to andrewkornkven (at pilots for 9/11 truth forum)

Robin Hordon (Retired ATC Boston) follows up with an explanation that includes the statement, "nobody ever positively re-identified the eastbound target noticed west of Dulles by O'Brien as being AA77, it has only been presumed as such."

These are at: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t8803.html

A-Train and Hordon at pfffft. Keep it up Deets this is not hilarious enough already. I want to laugh more today....

 

[beachnut]

A-Train and Hordon at pfffft. Keep it up Deets this is not hilarious enough already. I want to laugh more today....

Doubt he understands the RADAR is recorded and saved, so after 911 we know 77 never left RADAR, but the one sector did not let ATC in real time see 77. But he leaps into fantasy without thinking.

 

[Reheat]

Doubt he understands the RADAR is recorded and saved, so after 911 we know 77 never left RADAR, but the one sector did not let ATC in real time see 77. But he leaps into fantasy without thinking.

Quite frankly, I doubt he understands much of anything except "inside job"!

 

[dadeets]

So what are you saying? The pilots were in on it too?

No. Just that, although the official story is believed by the masses, it can't possibly be true.

 

[beachnut]

No. Just that, although the official story is believed by the masses, it can't possibly be true.

It is true, 19 terrorists killed 8 pilots and crashed 4 planes; too complex for you? So you make precise maneuvers but can't say what those maneuvers are.

Your lack of knowledge of the NTSB, FDR, Flying, ATC, ATC procedures, RADAR, DNA, FBI, military, hijacking procedures, NORAD, intercept rules, and more have helped you make false claims about 911.

Please produce evidence to support your claims; pick one.

Please explain the precise maneuvers in roll, yaw, and pitch. Go ahead make my day.

Quite frankly, I doubt he understands much of anything except "inside job"!

CIT included their witnesses pointing south, debunking CIT on the spot.
I was laughing when I wasted the time to see what the morons had put together years ago.

Three CIT witnesses who say 77 impacted the Pentagon, and they point the direction 77 was, verified by RADAR, damage path, and FDR.

They have to drop the people who were under the official flight path, and destroy their flight path, and use these witnesses who drew the fake flight paths for them. They used these people to make up lies of a NoC. You would use these witnesses only to show relative direction from them, not ask them to draw a flight path they are not able to draw.

 

[The Big Dog]

No. Just that, although the official story is believed by the masses, it can't possibly be true.

Well, Dwain, you are really knocking us dead with your withering and rigorous analysis in this thread.... ^^rolls eyes^^

I wonder if Dwain knows that the Citiots have refused to release the raw videos of their alleged witnesses.

I wonder if he understands the significance of that.

I wonder if Dwain is embarrassed that he is relying on at least three different truther groups that have directly contradictory theories.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I admit, I haven't looked into the 67 times per year numbers.

Then maybe you shouldn't be referring to material you don't understand.

But, there were two big differences in those statistics which I will call NORMAL, as compared with the June 2001 protocol. Those under NORMAL protocol could be approved at the local center (in the field, so to speak) and received priority status if they were an in-flight emergency. (All were, for the past 10 years.)

Please give a reference to a source for your assertion that fighters were routinely scrambled to deal with airliner in-flight emergencies. I'm not saying that NORAD wouldn't necessarily do something as stupid as to scramble a fighter to deal with, say, a drunken passenger or an engine failure, even though I can't imagine what use an F-15 would actually be in such circumstances, but I'm rather reluctant to believe something like that on your word alone. Particularly when we know that the only fighter interception for an in-flight emergency in ten years prior to 9/11 was the Payne Stewart flight, which took over an hour to intercept and didn't even involve a NORAD plane.

Those under the June 2001 protocol had to go to NORAD for approval.

Flat out lie, and one you couldn't even repeat correctly. Truthers like to pretend that the June 2001 protocol introduced a new requirement to clear all requests with the office of the Secretary of State for Defence, and then claim that this was evidence of LIHOP. However, as Mike Williams's site has long pointed out, the July 1997 protocol was even more restrictive on local commanders than the June 2001 protocol. Look it up for yourself; the July 1997 protocol requires all requests for assistance to go via the Secretary of State for Defence, whereas the June 2001 protocol introduces a specific exception for cases where there is immediate risk of loss of life.

Like most truthers, you're not really very knowledgeable about 9/11.

Dave

 

[NoahFence]

No. Just that, although the official story is believed by the masses, it can't possibly be true.

Do you have contradictory evidence?

 

[TruthersLie]

I'll respond as Lt. Col Dave Gapp (ret. USAF) responds. The hijackers weren't buckled in. The first thing the other pilot does is put the attacker on the ceiling, or bounce him around. Pilots know how to use the controls to their advantage. And secondly, dialing in the hijacker code is extremely easy, and it's what they've been trained to do.

Arguments from incredulity ROCK.

Just a quick question. In the history of aviation prior to 9/11, what was the policy in place when an aircraft was hijacked?

Why haven't we EVER read of pilots "put(ting) the attacker on the ceiling, or bounce (ing) him around?"

I'm sure that would be the perfect defense for hijacked jets... yet it never happens... why is that?

Oh because pilots follow policy to get the jet ON THE GROUND incase there is a hijacker with a BOMB.

Keep up that personal incredulity. Next you will be telling us about how the pilots were "top gun" navy and should easily have been able to disarm the hijackers.

just a quick question... did NASA force you to retire?

 

[tfk]

I'll respond as Lt. Col Dave Gapp (ret. USAF) responds. The hijackers weren't buckled in. The first thing the other pilot does is put the attacker on the ceiling, or bounce him around. Pilots know how to use the controls to their advantage. And secondly, dialing in the hijacker code is extremely easy, and it's what they've been trained to do.

... and in this "SOP" maneuver, flight attendants, meal carts, cups of hot coffee & wandering (occasionally 80 year old) passengers would be kept firmly in place by the artificial gravity devices that were part of the technology transfer deal worked out with the aliens at Area 51...



Lt. Col. Gapp flies for which airlines? I REALLY want to know, for when I book my next flight.

 

[tfk]

Mr. Deets,

That is not the assumption. A typical swath would be the space between two of these parallel lines. I gave the distance inward the swath could travel the benefit of the doubt, assigning it the distance of the longest of the two lines on either side of the swath. I also observed, but didn't draw out, that if the swathes were 3' wide, the distance inward would not in general increase.

Now, repeat your "analysis", allowing material to be 1" apart (not 6' or 3') AND allowing for deflections & retained kinetic energy.

You'll find that your initial reported results are garbage, er, "wrong".

No, I didn't draw any deflection lines because it would over complicate the illustration. In this case, my assumption is the parts along that swath would deflect away from the "hole" area, and eventually come to rest.

You assumed that they would deflect "away from the hole" & never "towards the hole".

Well, dagnabit, Dwain, THERE'S your mistake right there.

According to your assumption, whenever one drops a bunch of balls into one of those "Gaussian distribution demonstrators (random placed pins between sheets of plexiglas), then the distribution of balls would be highest on each edge & zero in the center.

Reality shows exactly the opposite: the highest concentration of balls is in the center, and tapers (as a Gaussian distribution) towards zero at the edges.

Gee, I guess Mother Nature disagrees with your assumptions. Guess whom I am going to believe...

No, its kinetic energy would be vectored in a different direction, but no longer toward the "hole" area.

Same as above. There is no preference for parts deflecting away from any given point. That assumption directly contradicts the concept of "random".

No, I'm assuming other parts that were further forward in the airplane did battle with the cheese grater column structure, and took some of it out. This cleared the way for parts from further aft to sale past the area were the up-front columns were nocked out.

The path does not need to be "cleared". There was plenty of space between the columns.

To some degree it behaves like a wave, but to another degree, it behaves like individual items. This, I'm assuming, is after individual items have broken away from their mountings. If you believe the Pentagon Building Performance Report on the matter of the FDR, they say it was found just in front of, and to the side of the "Exit" hole. In that case, it would have been an item that traveled through rows of standing columns. I don't believe it traveled that far, as my analysis suggests none of the loose items traveled that far.

Yup, I agree.

The facts of the discoveries, as related by the on-site workers, and your analysis are mutually exclusive.

ONE of them has to be wrong.

Guess where I'm putting my money...

 

[NoahFence]

Keep up that personal incredulity. Next you will be telling us about how the pilots were "top gun" navy and should easily have been able to disarm the hijackers.

I suppose there's something in the manual about flipping the 767 upside down and flipping off another plane....

 

[DGM]

I'll respond as Lt. Col Dave Gapp (ret. USAF) responds. The hijackers weren't buckled in. The first thing the other pilot does is put the attacker on the ceiling, or bounce him around. Pilots know how to use the controls to their advantage. And secondly, dialing in the hijacker code is extremely easy, and it's what they've been trained to do.

Are you claiming they were trained to "put the hijackers on the ceiling and bounce them around"? Why would they train to do that? Was there any instances of the hijackers killing the pilots prior to 9/11?


Sounds like your source has seen too many movies.

 

[TruthersLie]

Are you claiming they were trained to "put the hijackers on the ceiling and bounce them around"? Why would they train to do that? Was there any instances of the hijackers killing the pilots prior to 9/11?


Sounds like your source has seen too many movies.

Well DGM we do have to be honest.

In PSA 1771 the hijacker shot the pilot and copilot then crashed the jet. So it has happened in the past...

Gee, I wonder if the pilot/copilot then was able to "put the hijacker on the ceiling and bounce him around."

 

[George 152]

I suppose there's something in the manual about flipping the 767 upside down and flipping off another plane....

Nope.
But the idea of doing aeros with a plane full of pax to dislodge hijackers is going to damage a lot of pax at the same time..
Not recommended

 

[ozeco41]

Are you claiming they were trained to "put the hijackers on the ceiling and bounce them around"? Why would they train to do that? Was there any instances of the hijackers killing the pilots prior to 9/11?


Sounds like your source has seen too many movies.

If he digs himself much deeper into the hole he has dug he will be out of sight from the surface.

 

[pgimeno]

Nope.
But the idea of doing aeros with a plane full of pax to dislodge hijackers is going to damage a lot of pax at the same time..
Not recommended

The protocol for action in case of a hijacking actually includes a communication with the passengers:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we are being hijacked. Please fasten your seat belts as we are going to put the plane upside-down in order to reduce the hijackers. We apologize for the inconvenience in advance. Thanks for flying with us!"

 

[dadeets]

Do you have contradictory evidence?

Addressing just the airplane at the Pentagon at this time, I'll preface with my letter to editor that was published this morning (to the North County Times in San Diego County):

Conflict of interest in 9/11 case

On April 5, a case brought against Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers raised the bar to a new level for blatant conflict of interest. Judge John M. Walker Jr., a cousin once removed of George Walker Bush, saw no reason to recuse himself when a case charging the former vice president, secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff came before him for appellate review.

The case charges the defendants with responsibility for injuries suffered by April Gallop, an Army employee, and her newborn son at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

Gallop and many others in the 9/11 truth movement contend that explosives were planted inside the Pentagon and that no credible evidence has been presented supporting the theory that Flight 77 actually hit the building. The case before the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals is being heard by a three-judge panel. A motion to have Judge Walker disqualified from hearing the case was denied.

Dwain Deets
Encinitas

Clearly, there is something there that the defendants don't want to get out.

Here are my five reasons for questioning AA77:

1. The FDR and RADAR records are in conflict with each other.

2. Witnesses attest to seeing airplane on an approach path to the Pentagon that is inconsistent with the physical damage path.

3. Evidence inside the Pentagon (stopped clocks, etc.) correspond to an explosive event approximately 6 minutes before the official time attributed to an airplane impact.

4. No reporting of evidence has occurred that would tie any airplane parts in the debris to any particular airplane.

5. Failure of air defenses to respond to an obvious inflight emergency (complete loss of contact with AA77 by Indianapolis ATC approximately 40 minutes prior to events at Pentagon).

 

[TruthersLie]

<facepalm>

When given the answers to these problems you just ignore them.

#5 you even admitted to NOT KNOWING WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT... but hey... keep on repeating the same ole same ole.

Why did you retire from NASA again? I wonder....