• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Breaking news! Truther Ignored by Senator!

Why do I read this thread and the first thing that comes to mind is the movie Groundhog Day? Could it be that we are living 2006 all over again? Happy New Year everyone! See in 2006 again.....
 
tempesta29 said:
Second, there is nothing logical about descending after you pass it anyway.
Click to expand...
So why did the robot/space alien/Jews/whatever do it that way?

tempesta29 said:
Turning while descending means he had faith that when he came out of that turn that he was going to be aiming directly at this target, which, at that point, was very small because the Pentagon is not tall.
Click to expand...
No, it means he turned until he was facing the Pentagon and then he stopped turning. You may as well ask how someone knows they'll be lined up with Main St. after turning from Elm St. Surely, you aren't so bewildered by the latter?
 
twinstead said:
I'm trying to figure out what the deal with claiming the hijackers weren't good enough to pilot the planes. What does it mean? Were they flown by remote control? Where there expert pilots in place of the hijackers who were prepared to commit suicide?
Click to expand...
Because that's The Official StoryTM, and every truther knows that is always a lie. So they come up with alternative scenarios, doesn't matter that they all border on the impossible. Or that there is no evidence at all for any truther scenario offered.
 
Chodorov said:
No competent skeptic can accept the Arabs-alone conspiracy theory. It does not explain the facts. So we must send it to the fires. Simple as that. Its not something to get all emotional about. For example how does the Arabs-alone conspiracy theory explain all the explosions? How does it explain the molten iron in all three buildings? It doesn't. So its not reality. Its a fantasy.
Click to expand...
Cool story bro. :)
 
tempesta29 said:
... Yes, that's how pilots who know how to land approach airports for landing, yet this man wasn't a pilot who knew how to land at all nor was he approaching an airport for landing!
Click to expand...
Oops, Hani was a pilot; you got this one wrong. Try again.

haniFAA.jpg

Hani held a Commercial Pilot Certificate. He used what he learned, when you are too high you can use a 360 degree turn to loose altitude, ending the same place you started. A pilot did it, and you can't figure it out.

Do you check your facts before making up delusions?
 
djlunacee said:
Why do I read this thread and the first thing that comes to mind is the movie Groundhog Day? Could it be that we are living 2006 all over again? Happy New Year everyone! See in 2006 again.....
Click to expand...
I even saw chipmunk stew in here!
 
Originally Posted by tempesta29
... Yes, that's how pilots who know how to land approach airports for landing, yet this man wasn't a pilot who knew how to land at all nor was he approaching an airport for landing!

thank you. I wasn't aware that the Pentagon was not an airport.

and he was a pilot.
 
Thunder said:
Originally Posted by tempesta29 [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
... Yes, that's how pilots who know how to land approach airports for landing, yet this man wasn't a pilot who knew how to land at all nor was he approaching an airport for landing!

thank you. I wasn't aware that the Pentagon was not an airport.

and he was a pilot.
Click to expand...

Learn to read. I said "this man wasn't a pilot who knew how to land at all".

Comprehension 101.
 
tempesta29 said:
I keep hearing how easy it was to hit the Twin towers at nearly 600 mph yet suddenly diving a 757 into 30 acres is like sharpshooting.

Consistency please.
Click to expand...
If you understood anything about planes, which you keep demonstrating that you don't, you'd also understand that these two ideas *are* consistent.

The less parallel to the ground you are, the less control you have over the plane.
 
beachnut said:
Oops, Hani was a pilot; you got this one wrong. Try again.

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/haniFAA.jpg[/qimg]
Hani held a Commercial Pilot Certificate. He used what he learned, when you are too high you can use a 360 degree turn to loose altitude, ending the same place you started. A pilot did it, and you can't figure it out.

Do you check your facts before making up delusions?
Click to expand...

"Yet this man wasn't a pilot who knew how to land at all."

Where in this statement do I claim he wasn't a pilot?
 
chipmunk stew said:
If you understood anything about planes, which you keep demonstrating that you don't, you'd also understand that these two ideas *are* consistent.

The less parallel to the ground you are, the less control you have over the plane.
Click to expand...

Yet I never claimed that one would have to dive steeply into the Pentagon to hit the top of it either. The building was massive. You would simply have to crash into it from above, just as any plane crashes into the ground.

As opposed to spinning around and trying to nail the much shorter side just meters above the ground as you take out lamp posts on the highway.
 
Originally Posted by tempesta29
I keep hearing how easy it was to hit the Twin towers at nearly 600 mph yet suddenly diving a 757 into 30 acres is like sharpshooting.

yes, flying horizontally into the two largest buildings in the USA, is pretty simple for a pilot. diving it into a flat building, takes more skill.

but basically, the skill required to pilot a plane into the side of the Pentagon, is to know how to land a plane.

duhhhhh.
 
Last edited:
tempesta29 said:
Yet I never claimed that one would have to dive steeply into the Pentagon to hit the top of it either. The building was massive. You would simply have to crash into it from above, just as any plane crashes into the ground.

As opposed to spinning around and trying to nail the much shorter side just meters above the ground as you take out lamp posts on the highway.
Click to expand...
The logical error in your thinking is in assuming that everything he did he did on purpose. It's the sharpshooter fallacy.
 
chipmunk stew said:
The logical error in your thinking is in assuming that everything he did he did on purpose. It's the sharpshooter fallacy.
Click to expand...

How do you do a long, descending turn, level out meters above the ground and strike the side of the Pentagon by accident?
 
Originally Posted by tempesta29
As opposed to spinning around and trying to nail the much shorter side just meters above the ground as you take out lamp posts on the highway.

um...all the sides of a pentagon, are the same length.
 
Thunder said:
Originally Posted by tempesta29 [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
I keep hearing how easy it was to hit the Twin towers at nearly 600 mph yet suddenly diving a 757 into 30 acres is like sharpshooting.

yes, flying horizontally into the two largest buildings in the USA, is pretty simple for a pilot. diving it into a flat building, takes more skill.

but basically, the skill required to pilot a plane into the side of the Pentagon, is to know how to land a plane.
Click to expand...

....which he couldn't do in a plane he had experience at piloting. So... what's your point?

And no, hitting a 30 acre target from above is not harder than hitting a target that extends from the ground up to 77 feet in height without touching the ground. And no, hitting that target is not the same as landing. If Hanjour had hit the ground at any point prior to hitting the Pentagon wall his mission would have failed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom