Breaking news! Truther Ignored by Senator!

[fess]

Hanjour didn't just point the plane at the Pentagon. He performed a descending spiral and hit the Pentagon flying parallel and just meters off the ground. Air traffic control assumed it was a military plane because of its speed and maneuverability. They said it was unsafe to fly a plane in such an extreme manner. Does that sound like pointing a plane at a building? Pointing or aiming a plane doesn't involve extreme maneuvering or velocity.

Why spiral down into such a low profile target? Did Hanjour not have a specific, more high profile target in mind? Did he not do any research? He might have been able to take out the Secretary of Defense; it's clear he wasn't gunning for him at all. Very little about Hanjour's alleged suicide attack makes sense.

I just love the way you strictly adhere to the “truther” mentality. The turn made by the aircraft was a “spiral”?
Spiral:
A curve on a plane that winds around a fixed center point at a continuously increasing or decreasing distance from the point.
So, a turn of 270 to 330 degrees (depending on what site you are quoting) is classified as a spiral, is that what you are claiming? We used to do overhead 360 approaches constantly in the military, but we never called them a spiral.
So someone said that flying in that manner was unsafe? Do you thing Hani really cared? Was he concerned with passenger comfort? Was he concerned about the integrity of the aircraft? Was he concerned about the FAA tearing his commercial certificate in half?
The rest of your post is total bunk. BTW, the SOD’s office is on the other side of the building.

 

[fess]

That's correct. I'm not sure if you know, but air is very thick at that altitude. That velocity is well beyond the maximum cruising altitude of a 767--that's at high altitude. With that kind of low altitude drag, that aircraft would have experienced severe aerodynamic stress, assuming a 767 is even capable of reaching that speed at that altitude. So again, these people weren't just aiming. In the case of flight 175, this alleged hijacker was performing an amazing feat of pilotage.

More drivel to prove you have no knowledge of aeronautics at all.
Here is a good read for you.

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

 

[Thunder]

So someone said that flying in that manner was unsafe? Do you thing Hani really cared? Was he concerned with passenger comfort? Was he concerned about the integrity of the aircraft? Was he concerned about the FAA tearing his commercial certificate in half?

its really, really unfair for you to be this funny. some of us have colds and coughs, and these posts cause us to laugh uncontrolably, which can be painful.

 

[fess]

Try addressing the argument, not the arguer. You seem to have trouble with that one.

Pot; Kettle, did you hear that?

 

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by tempesta29
Try addressing the argument, not the arguer. You seem to have trouble with that one.

holy ****. you have GOT to be **** ing kiddin' me!!!!

did he just say that??

 

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by tempesta29 [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
Try addressing the argument, not the arguer. You seem to have trouble with that one.

holy ****. you have GOT to be **** ing kiddin' me!!!!

did he just say that??

Why yes indeed, I believe he did, round about the time he said the planes were flown by remote control.

 

[kerikiwi]

...for believing in remote control planes. You know I also believe that there is life on other planets. Does that make me a wizard of the dark arts?

If you believe they have been here, it further confirms your insanity.

 

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by tempesta29
...for believing in remote control planes. You know I also believe that there is life on other planets.

and you believe in both, without any evidence.

 

[Craig4]

Some of these CTer's could certainly benefit from reading more of the official documents and reading other literature such as James Bamford's The Shadow Cabinet. The one thing that becomes strikingly obvious to me is how much the failures prior to to 9/11 by the NSA, CIA and FBI match what happened up here in Canada with the bombing of Air India Flights 182 and 181. CSIS and more local law enforcement had all the information they needed combined to prevent the bombings but the lack of information sharing essentially allowed the plot to succeed. While certainly not the same in overall scale the AIr India bombings resulted from similar errors.

That's one of the big problems with the 9/11 CT'er cult. In addition to an appalling lack of respect for the victims and their families they make it harder for credible failure analysis by grouping real research with their nonsense.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

tempesta, is a large boeing plane capable of, say, a barrell roll?

 

[tempesta29]

I just love the way you strictly adhere to the “truther” mentality. The turn made by the aircraft was a “spiral”?
Spiral:
A curve on a plane that winds around a fixed center point at a continuously increasing or decreasing distance from the point.
So, a turn of 270 to 330 degrees (depending on what site you are quoting) is classified as a spiral, is that what you are claiming? We used to do overhead 360 approaches constantly in the military, but we never called them a spiral.

I've heard pilots refer to the maneuver as a spiral. Call it what you will.

So someone said that flying in that manner was unsafe? Do you thing Hani really cared? Was he concerned with passenger comfort? Was he concerned about the integrity of the aircraft? Was he concerned about the FAA tearing his commercial certificate in half?

The point of referencing the quote about the manner of his flying was in no way intended to highlight that such pilotage is more dangerous than Hanjour would have been willing to manage; it is to point out that such speeds and maneuverability are extremely uncharacteristic for that aircraft and particularly implausible for an incompetent pilot in control of said aircraft with no experience in the cockpit.

The rest of your post is total bunk. BTW, the SOD’s office is on the other side of the building.

Right. So why didn't he hit the other side of the building. And calling something bunk does not make it so.

More drivel to prove you have no knowledge of aeronautics at all.
Here is a good read for you.

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

Again, this isn't a book club. First I want evidence that a 767 can even hit 590 mph at sea level. If you can provide that, give me evidence that a pilot can control a 767 at that speed. Next we'll discuss the feasibility of an amateur pilot with no experience at the helm of such an aircraft controlling said aircraft at said velocity into a laterally small target and striking it with precision.

"767" is only mentioned twice in your little link and addresses nothing related to my rhetoric. I can't believe you even posted that. It is of zero significance to this discussion.

 

[tempesta29]

and you believe in both, without any evidence.

A lack of life on other planets would constitute an inconceivable statistical anomaly.

 

[kerikiwi]

Right. So why didn't he hit the other side of the building.

He didn't hit the other side because he hit the side he hit.
Why didn't Flight 93 hit the White House? because it hit the ground in Pennsylvania.

 

[kerikiwi]

I've heard pilots refer to the maneuver as a spiral. Call it what you will.

If 'pilots' were heard by you calling the manoeuvre a spiral, those pilots were wrong.
calling something what you will doesn't make it so. i could call my horse a unicorn: that doesn't change the fact that it is a horse.

 

[tempesta29]

He didn't hit the other side because he hit the side he hit.

That's deep. You should write fortune cookies for redundant Chinese restaurants.

Hanjour went out of his way to fly in an extreme manner so he could level out very low, risking crashing into the ground so he could hit a low profile part of the Pentagon? The Pentagon is massive from above. What sense is there in turning and descending like he did to hit the building from the side?

Argh. There I go asking logical questions again. Sorry.

Why didn't Flight 93 hit the White House? because it hit the ground in Pennsylvania.

I thought it was because they... "rolled" on the hijackers.

 

[kerikiwi]

Hanjour went out of his way to fly in an extreme manner so he could level out very low, risking crashing into the ground so he could hit a low profile part of the Pentagon? The Pentagon is massive from above. What sense is there in turning and descending like he did to hit the building from the side?

I thought the plane was flown by a robot?
Can you explain exactly why the robot was concerned with which side of the building it hit? or are you saying the robot was really confused?

 

[kerikiwi]

I thought it was because they... "rolled" on the hijackers.

Wasn't that plane also flown by a robot?

 

[tempesta29]

Nice dodge. I'm starting to wonder who the real robot is.

 

[tempesta29]

Oh, and nice straw man as well. I never mentioned robots.

 

[Dragon37]

Oh, and nice straw man as well. I never mentioned robots.

You never mention anything. You have no thoughts except the ones your CT handlers give you.

You haven't mentioned anything that is remotely credible in any of your posts. You better head back to the toilet.