Breaking news! Truther Ignored by Senator!

[332nd]

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

You said "it was almost like no human pilot was at the controls" so... jihadist hamsters?

 

[triforcharity]

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

Well, when you call a lemon an orange, don't you think you should be corrected?

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 why do you think that it is uncaracteristic for a Boeing 757 to fly at that speed, at that altitude?




It's unsafe.

and particularly implausible for an incompetent pilot in control of said aircraft with no experience in the cockpit.

Poisoning the well logical fallacy. He was a CERTIFIED pilot, with a Commercial Pilots' License issued by the FAA.

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

Maybe he liked that side?

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.

Again, poisioning the well. See above.

Maybe you 'aught to try reading the link again, this time, from top to bottom, left to right.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Yep. It is massive from above. But, there is only ONE shot to get it right if you try to divebomb the Pentagon. If you attack from the side, if you're too high, you can come back and try again.

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

Wow, that is the most disrespectful thing you've ever said. I bet you wouldn't say something like that to the victims' families, would you?

 

[DGM]

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.

This is an easy one. He aimed for the side because it's easier then diving down on top.

Any bets he wouldn't understand why?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Once you invoke the remote control theory, you may as well go all in and invoke beam weapons and holograms, too, because you've already long since crossed the line of plausibility and ventured deeply into the land of absurdity.

 

[djlunacee]

Once you invoke the remote control theory, you may as well go all in and invoke beam weapons and holograms, too, because you've already long since crossed the line of plausibility and ventured deeply into the land of absurdity.

That occurred on page 1.

 

[Thunder]

the plane was coming from the west. they piloted the plane into one of the two western sides.

seems logical to me.

and we also have ZERO evidence that they investigated the Pentagon to see who sat where. remember, they are just a bunch of stupid cave-Arabs, according to 9-11 Truth.

 

[JohnG]

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

I'm sure there are quite a few official story dupes who consider the toilet their base. At least it seems like that's where the majority of their most insightful ideas seem to originate.

Drink it in, folks, that's the closest he'll ever come to admitting he was wrong about the whole Al Qaeda = toilet thing.

It's also the closest he'll come to being (intentionally) amusing.

 

[Adolph]

DeMartini said it in an interview for a show about the WTC

So there it is. Straight from the horses mouth. Anyone who says that the towers would have withstood both the impact AND fires is making false assumptions or lying. There is no data available for anyone to say that the towers would have survived a fire from those impacts. Unless someone knows otherwise and can correct me. By the way, can you please show me the quote from DeMartini where he says the towers would have survived the resultant fires from jet impacts and what data he was basing this on? I'm having trouble finding it...

They interviewed him in I believe January 2001 for a show that was going to be about the WTC. I saw it on the show, "The Rise and Fall of the WTC". He said in the interview that the WTC could withstand multiple plane impacts. I don't know what he based it on. BTW, he died on 9/11.

I used some Google-fu and found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU


Interestingly enough, I've seen, "The Rise and Fall of the WTC" more than once and it appears they did some editing. One thing I remember missing in the newer version was when they interviewed a structural engineer and he had a little model that was four columns with a wood base and a couple of blocks that represented floors. So what he did was put a weight on the top of the model and it supported it, then he removed a 'floor' and the model twisted and the weight fell off. I don't know why they changed it.

I don't know who posted it but someone said that the designers of the WTC should be executed for their 'bad' design. Anyone who has seen an interview with Leslie Robinson, the structural engineer of the WTC, can see that he is just crushed by what happened. In one interview he said something like being the designer of two buildings that collapsed was hard to take and I believe him.

Minoru Yamasaki is already dead (1986) so they can't execute him.

 

[VonKleist]

wrong thread. . .

 

[tempesta29]

the plane was coming from the west. they piloted the plane into one of the two western sides.

seems logical to me.

Does it now?

and we also have ZERO evidence that they investigated the Pentagon to see who sat where. remember, they are just a bunch of stupid cave-Arabs, according to 9-11 Truth.

Are you under the impression that the above post is helping your cause? All that preparation, funding, training, and they didn't even bother to find out where top brass was located? You've gone through all the difficult bits including taking over the plane, and you don't even bother to find out where you have to "aim" it?

Drink it in, folks, that's the closest he'll ever come to admitting he was wrong about the whole Al Qaeda = toilet thing.

I never claimed Al Qaeda = toilet.

 

[tempesta29]

Well, when you call a lemon an orange, don't you think you should be corrected?

A lemon and orange are genetically and therefore mathematically distinguishable. It is conceivable that Hanjour's maneuver could be considered a spiral.

And why do you think that it is uncaracteristic for a Boeing 757 to fly at that speed, at that altitude?

It's unsafe.

It's also more difficult, particularly if you're aiming at a small target.

Poisoning the well logical fallacy. He was a CERTIFIED pilot, with a Commercial Pilots' License issued by the FAA.

And that proves what? his flight instructors don't seem to think he should have had that license.

Maybe he liked that side?

Absolute drivel.

 

[George 152]

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

No you haven't. The manoeuvre is called a descending turn and any pilot on his third training flight has his first taste of flying such a manoeuvre .
The thing about aviation is the requirement for accuracy in the use of terms..

 

[tempesta29]

Yep. It is massive from above. But, there is only ONE shot to get it right if you try to divebomb the Pentagon. If you attack from the side, if you're too high, you can come back and try again.

You've got to be kidding. It has been claimed over and over that all these guys had to do was aim these airplanes. In this instance, the Pentagon from above is the biggest 9/11 target and one of the biggest potential targets in the country. One shot to get it right? It is a no-brainer.

Yet, you're claiming that Hanjour performed this massive turn and took the great risk of crashing into the ground so that he might pull up and try again if he missed? The Pentagon from the side is a very small target. How many times did he think he would have to get it right? Not to mention the possibility he may not be able to pull up at all. This guy hadn't even flown a commercial airliner in his life and his instructors said he couldn't even fly a Cessna, but now you've got him planning out this maneuver with contingencies involved, the guy who didn't even bother to find out where Rumsfeld's office was.

It's really just comical more than anything. You've reduced yourself to comedy, all for the sake of protecting your "house".

Wow, that is the most disrespectful thing you've ever said. I bet you wouldn't say something like that to the victims' families, would you?

Yawn.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Try steering a plane that's nosediving.

 

[triforcharity]

A lemon and orange are genetically and therefore mathematically distinguishable. It is conceivable that Hanjour's maneuver could be considered a spiral.

Maybe to idiots, and liars.

It's also more difficult, particularly if you're aiming at a small target.

Speculation.

And that proves what? his flight instructors don't seem to think he should have had that license.

Because why exactly? Because he couldn't understand english well enough, and because takeoff and landings were not his strong suit.

Absolute drivel.

Well, it matches your posts, so I guess we're even.

 

[chipmunk stew]

the guy who didn't even bother to find out where Rumsfeld's office was

Why would he bother with that? No one believes it was an assassination attempt.*




*edit: With the possible exception of some conspiracy theorists, although I don't recall hearing about any such theories.

 

[PS13]

I think it's evident by now that I don't think Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. Flight instructors paint these guys as incompetent. One flight school even notified the FBI that they were concerned hijackers were training there. There were many warnings that hijackings may be imminent, yet no planes were intercepted on 9/11. We're simply told it was incompetence.

And the collapses do not look natural to me. I expect when the upper sections of The Twin towers pass through this gaping hole of resistance that they will then decelerate when they encounter undamaged structure. The undamaged portion of the towers is able to apply more upward force on the upper section than the fire damaged crash zones could. It's logic. Increased resistance means decreased acceleration.

Not only this, but why aren't these upper sections simply destroyed before they reach the ground? We know that the lower sections are acting on the much smaller upper sections as well. All that destructive force should be acting similarly on the upper sections. It looks like a hot knife through butter when it in fact it's a hot knife through a hot knife. These masses are of the same exact construction. Hell, one of the towers was hit very high up on its structure, meaning that upper section was proportionally very small. How is it not destroyed itself before it plows through everything below it? It isn't because those upper sections aren't destroying the lower sections.

And no, WTC 7 should never have reached gravitational acceleration. How can so many undamaged columns all offer no resistance for those 2.25 seconds? I am genuinely baffled that an intelligent person can look at that collapse and think it is anything but a controlled demolition.

But you want me to tell you exactly what happened? I can't say. I know what didn't happen, and I know the official story is BS. All I get in response to the above are ad hominem arguments.

Okay. So, you're not sure who did it, but you don't think it was Al`Queda. Any guesses on who would of done it, or maybe a more important question since you don't think it was Al`Queda, is why 'whoever they are' did it?

snip...



Remote control planes are insane? Wow. I wonder what you must think about space travel and nano-technology--black magick?

Are you saying that remote control airliners are a plausible theory for the planes on 9/11? Where did you come up with this? Do you know the company that first produced this technology? If it was remote tech, then why didn't U93 make it's target? Did the passengers somehow turn off the remote control unit? How did they know where it was if they did? I always thought that if the planes were guided by remote that meant that the people in the cockpits couldn't control the planes. So, why was 1 plane out of 4 not able to be guided by remote? Is it possible that there were no remotes & the planes were in fact piloted by the terrorists like we were told? If you were suggesting something other than remote plane technology, then by all means, throw it out there. I think the Al`Queda guys were flying the planes.

I got one bit from the Boston Herald.

Did you? Do you have a copy of it? A link maybe? I ask cause if I had to bet, I'd say you got this bit of info from one of Alex Jones' movies...maybe 'Terrorstorm'? ... or maybe it was one of the Loose Change "films".? If you personally have the Globe with that article in it, please show.

 

[triforcharity]

You've got to be kidding. It has been claimed over and over that all these guys had to do was aim these airplanes. In this instance, the Pentagon from above is the biggest 9/11 target and one of the biggest potential targets in the country. One shot to get it right? It is a no-brainer.

Yepo. One shot. Airplanes don't have brakes, and if he went too fast, it could break apart, and he would have FAILED his mission.

Yet, you're claiming that Hanjour performed this massive turn and took the great risk of crashing into the ground so that he might pull up and try again if he missed? The Pentagon from the side is a very small target. How many times did he think he would have to get it right? Not to mention the possibility he may not be able to pull up at all. This guy hadn't even flown a commercial airliner in his life and his instructors said he couldn't even fly a Cessna, but now you've got him planning out this maneuver with contingencies involved, the guy who didn't even bother to find out where Rumsfeld's office was.

Yeah, seems logical to me. If I am planning on something, I always want to make sure that I have a plan B. It's called strategy.

How many times? Don't know. Speculation at best.

But yet, the instructors that worked with him, stated that they had no doubt that he could have pulled it off. Imagine that.


Maybe he didn't give a rats ass about who he hit, as long as he hit the damn thing.

It's really just comical more than anything. You've reduced yourself to comedy, all for the sake of protecting your "house".

My "House" doesn't need "protecting", it is perfectly capable of standing on it's own. I just don't like little pricks on the interwebs who think they are funny or cool, to insult, lie, and otherwise show their asses.

Yawn.

I rest my case.

 

[JohnG]

I never claimed Al Qaeda = toilet.

No, you didn't. I apologize.