Or did we?Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Jango easily gets lost. He originally came here with a solid "terrorist pilots did it by flying planes" opinion, amended by a somewhat reasonable LIHOP allowance. But he is always eager and ready to jump into full-blown mad-MIHOP territory cued by the slightest "but about anomanly 63924+n?" interjection. As if he had a fetish for CTs.
Jango
Graduate Poster
Like what? The collapse sequences? That instructors who were paid to train Hani said that he sucked, were amazed that he could do something like what he allegedly did: fly a 757 twenty feet off the ground at 460 knots.
At the time, his alleged exploits, along with the other hijackers, were being described as:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/12/se.60.html
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf
What do you make of this obvious discrepancy?
He managed it somehow. It certainly happened (or are you a 'no-plane at the Pentagon' believer?) and didn't happen by remote control. That Hanjour pulled it off is the only rational answer.
Jango
Graduate Poster
How do you know?
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
Funny. This is a pretty old thread, and I don't know why it was resurrected, but I just noticed that the nearest of the two guys analysing the loose change photos in this video is the Professor who supervised my thesis work.
Brings back a lot of memories.
Those planes had no such capability, among other things. I suggest you search the forum for more information.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
That's a classic example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. He didn't fly a 757 straight and level 20 feet off the ground; he flew it on a descending course into the side of a building, and by dumb luck didn't quite hit the ground before he hit the wall. And if he had hit the ground first, we'd be arguing about how an untrained pilot managed to hit the ground precisely 20 feet, or 100 feet, or whatever, short of the Pentagon, because that was the exact distance needed to reduce the collision speed just enough to do no more damage than the exact amount that was actually done.
As for your clearly-implied suggestion that AA77 was remote controlled and the others weren't (don't deny it, please, because you've already said that you don't think the others were RC), what kind of sense does that make in any universe?
Dave
Jango
Graduate Poster
You know that for a fact?
Such as?
I'd rather not be deferred to that, I'd rather hear it directly from you instead.
Jango
Graduate Poster
The plane was observed by people in the vicinity. It was described as being at-or-about 20 feet off of the ground.
It's not a belief, though, so settle down on that regard. I've insinuated the possibility of it being remote controlled. Using commercial jets as an instrument of terrorism, even by remote control, makes about as much sense as what military planners and intelligence agencies can conjure up, like with Operation Northwoods. Using planes themselves as a weapon was felt by the U.S. Navy a whole bunch in World War II. (Another interesting fact that came out of World War II was the deployment of unmanned aircraft. The drone has been around for a while now.) In the war against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, the Augusto C. Sandino International Airport was attacked with a bomb-laden small manned aircraft, paid for by American taxpayers and provided by the C.I.A.
The capability was there. Hani has been described by his instructors as being terrible, so much so that they called the FAA. I watched CJ's video from the beginning to the very end, and then re-watched all of Hani's movements. Quite remarkable feats for someone who could not handle a Cessna. The fact that he was given a license is not a trumpet to his aviational skills, it is a knock against the FAA, who has many in 9/11, because they had been specifically contacted and warned about him by his instructors.
There are many instances like that in 9/11 where the so-called deficit of common sense, competency and logical thinking was so severely lacking. They were not all a bunch of ignorant dumbasses. Look at the passports they all used to get into the U.S. Fifteen of the nineteen should have been denied immediately because of all of the obvious errors and red flags any passport puncher would recognize at first glance. Kind of like how the Blind Sheikh was able to enter the U.S. even after being on the naughty list. He had help doing that, and that help came from the C.I.A.
Do you see the pattern yet?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
So? It wasn't flying at that height for any significant length of time; that's just how low it happened to get before it hit the wall. There's no coincidence there, just an incidence.
But using remote control to fly one of four planes into a target while using human pilots to fly three others at the same time into different targets makes no sense whatsoever. If you can remote control one, why not remote control all of them? If you can get three decent pilots, why not either find a fourth or only hit three targets? And anyway, none of the pilots had to be particularly good; they didn't have to take off or land, and if one of them crashed (as, in fact, one did), it would just be seen as a more limited success.
There's a word for seeing patterns that aren't there.
Dave
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
Yup! The pattern is that once you accept the premise of a conspiracy, then everything that did or didn't happen must be explained in terms of that premise, which is easy because any counter evidence can be explained as fake and all lack of evidence can be explained as a coverup.
What is the 20 feet off the ground? Why do you quote mine BS. Hani was in a descent up to the Pentagon, not some level flight BS you found on the Internet.
All the instructors? No, some quote mined instructors, as you fall for the MSM articles which you have idea what they left out, etc.
What does the FDR say about the 20 foot BS? What is real evidence say? Gee, Hani hit the Pentagon, BINGO, means the instructors were wrong - the MSM got instructors who were wrong. How did that happen? Gee, did anyone look at the Data? Did you? Gee, you posted the RADAR data... It show nothing special...
Where do you get 20 feet?
The last four seconds of Radio Altimeter height, which is calibrated for the landing gear down...
183 feet, 89 feet, 57 feet, 4 - feet last four seconds of 77,
Jango, I do not see 20 feet except for the last second where Flight 77 went from 57 feet above the ground if the gear was down, to hitting the first/second floor section, about 12 feet above the ground.
So 77 was 20 feet above the ground just like on landing, for an instant.
Guess the fish-eye like lens on the parking camera fooled 911 truth into thinking 77 sped across the ground; it did not. Where did you get 20 feet?
MSM, quote mining. Why does 911 truth use MSM, since the MSM was in on 911? Makes no logical sense to use MSM quote mining for anything. Why do you use MSM mistakes and BS for your knowledge of 911?
Wow, CNN... wow, Wolf Blitzer? Wolf?
BS statement, the plane crashed into building, it takes no skill.
Landing takes an exact course (not heading, course), hitting a building can be done on any course - means hitting a building is infinitely easier than landing, one course to land, and you must be on center line, any course to hit the building and it can change constantly until impact... BS statement by a BS news organization taking quote mines from BS people to fool you. You are a quote miner, who loves to scan and make up BS. Proof is this statement you picked - it is BS.
Landing takes an exact attitude, hitting a building can be any attitude, even upside down - flight 93 crashed up side down. Means crashing is infinitely easier than landing.
Along with attitude, landing has to be at one set speed, exact speed; hitting a building can be at any speed, from a stall, to well past Vmo, 120 knots to 510 knots, means crashing into a building is easier, much easier than landing. Thus the statement you quote mined is BS.
An American kid off the street with zero flight time could fly as good as the terrorist pilots - I have witnesses it as an instructor in the USAF - I have thousand of hours and have had zero trained people in the seat, they flew good enough with no training to hit a building; wow, how did Hani hit a 900 foot wide Pentagon when he had problems with the 40 foot wide runway near DC? Wow, how - gee, 900 foot wide, 40 foot wide... Do you need to quote mine to make up BS
BS again, it was VMC conditions (aka clear and a million, no clouds on 911), like all pilots the terrorists were trained in VOR, they had to fly alone to different airports to get their FAA pilots licence; the 757/767 have VORs, thus you tune in the VOR next to the Pentagon and an arrow points to it; fly to the arrow, you are there, I could teach anyone to fly VORs, in seconds - thus this is BS. Plus at 30,000 feet you can see the WTC from a long way, and fly by EYE.
Wow, they knew which way to turn? lol, they were headed west, you turn east and you can't miss after tune in the VOR. A bunch of EGO talking heads from CNN, and you quote mine them without thinking twice. You take BS, to support BS.
As a pilot, I don't need any of the BS computer flight management BS, all I need to do is figure out the how to tune the VOR; and the terrorists had the flight manuals, and figured it out, the VOR were tuned to the destinations they went to. Proved by the FDRs - Gee, do you need any help seeing the WTC towers; do you need flight computers to see the WTC towers? No. BS flag goes up on all CNN has; when I watch FOX and CNN I do it for amusement, as BS flows - I use the real facts and evidence from the news, not BS like this.
The terrorists were trained in the basics, and guess what, the basics work in super duper computer planes, and the 757/767 were designed to fly well, they had engineered out the poor flying qualities of older jets, and made it easier to fly. A fact. Did you see a dutch roll from 11, or 175, or 77? No, easy hand flying, to impact; yet Hani was in a PIO, up to 2.4, or so Gs before impact, almost hit the highway, missed it by 40 feet, or less.
You posted proof Hani did it; poor altitude control as he went down and up because he failed to retard the throttles to near idle to let down. Wow, a less than standard rate turn marked by poor bank control.
Do you seen the fact they know he hand flew it, and give more evidence when they say "control column movements". Means a person flew the jet, you just supplied multiple facts which refute remote control.
What are you talking about? A factual report is the Radar summary from the NTSB, who also has the FDR to use to explain 77's flying.
How do we know no remote control, you just presented the evidence; do you read what you posted?
Remote control would use the autopilot - and the plane used was stock; as a pilot if I see new stuff, I don't take the plane, it is illegal to have unspecified modification to my jet - I don't go.
You supplied the fact the autopilot was disengaged, it means the terrorist is now flying the jet. Fact number one you missed.
Do you read? The terrorists pilot used the control column to pitch 77 down. Means no remote control.
How do you remote control a stock 757 in commercial service; talk about having thousands in on 911... What would it cost?
Remote control is one of the dumbest claims on 911 - for many reasons.
The FDR shows Flight 77 was hand flown. Do you understand, the FDR?
http://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/AAL77_fdr.pdf
I have the raw data, and the data which Warren decoded, which has the final four seconds, and matches the NTSB for the rest of the data. Even 911 truth nuts like Balsamo have the raw data, and thus they have to say the FDR, the entire NTSB faked the FDR. Add thousand more to the list of MIB, like me, I was on active duty on 911, thus I was in on the "stand-down", I was an active flying on 911, I am one of the MIB too; if you believe 911 truth nonsense based on ignorance.
The FDR shows Hani/Terrorists pilot make inputs which were flying Flight 77 to impact. Evidence shows no remote control.
How would you add remote control? How would it home into the Pentagon?
The only pattern I see is a Gish Gallop of BS from you, and off topic BS about passports and other BS which happened to all of us who travel.
There was no remote control on the 757/767s used on 911, it is a fact, to speculate about it is only an exercise in ignorance and BS.
You quote mined MSM to come up with BS about remote control, and skipped the FDR which shows the terrorists flew 77 poorly and crashed into the largest office building in the world and almost crashed hundreds of feet short into the highway, missing it by 40 feet. The final airspeed was 483.5 knots, the engines were at full throttle - the FDR says so, not some Wolf Blitzer BS interview.
I see a pattern, one of BS, on aliens, JFK, and 911.
I see a pattern, one where facts, evidence and reality take a backseat to fantasy, wild speculation, and nonsense based on opinions born in BS.
Wow, you dropped the remote control and go full blown fantasy, the CIA did it, with passports. Where do you get the Gish Gallop training. the cia
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yep, it's called layman's judgment in hindsight. You are so steeped in conspiracy rhetoric you rarely see any other explanation.
Jango
Graduate Poster
Hyperbole and demonstrably false.
Belz...
Fiend God
Pfft. You say that because you're so obviously part of the conspiracy yourself.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Then please provide the demonstration.
Jango
Graduate Poster
Actually, I had hoped for a long time that I'd find myself out of it. But, I haven't and I don't think that I can without omitting a whole bunch of unfortunate truths. It is not the way I want things, but by all open appearances, there is too much dirt and too many large ?'s to ignore what is actually there.
It is a third rail type of conversation in the mainstream circles, even though most of them have reported what is on the open record. While the government feigned surprise and a lack of imagination, the media told us that the reality of that was much different, as if we needed them to tell us that. They did though. It can be found from any major news publication operating at the time. Most interesting is T.V. media who had reporters at or near Ground Zero and what they repeatedly, across many networks, and consistent with many eyewitnesses, reported seeing, hearing and feeling: very loud and powerful explosions. But that information, even though recorded and broadcasted to millions across the world, was not introduced into any final official report thus, it is of no importance to people who spend so much time actively defending anything anyone says that is contrary to the mainstream orthodoxy.
Source, like reference, page number, url - source this please.
Darn, the FDR show a constant decent into the Pentagon, thus it was at 20 feet for less than a hundredth of a second.
I will type this slowly... From the FDR, the radar altimeter readings for the final four seconds.
183 feet, 89 feet, 57 feet, 4 feet - impact. 4 feet matches well to being about 12 feet at the impact of the nose into the Pentagon, the RAD ALT is calibrated for zero feet at landing. What do you think about 20 feet now?
Why do you quote mine stuff. Where do you get it?
There was zero capability for a stock 757/767 on 911 to be remotely controlled. It is zero, no matter how much you post, how many Gish Gallops of BS that was done, or plans, etc. Flight 11, 175, 77 and 93 were used on 911; four stock commercial airlines, not some CIA BS. Thus there was zero capability except in some fantasy born in ignorance. You can show NASA flight test for fuel additives, and it does not mean the planes on 911 were remote control, and missed their target like the NASA flight test missed the test point.
So, what is this Gish Gallop about? This is BS, since Hani must fly with an instructor to rent a plane, he essentially grounded by the FAA through the instructors who will not rent to him solo. Use some logic, stop making up BS.
Nothing in the video proves remote control and it is hard to see how poorly Hani flew from outside the cockpit. Poor flying looks okay outside the plane. The video is not proof of anything, the FDR show how poorly Hani flew. What you see from the outside no indication of how the pilot is flying, only in severe gross upsets does the plane look bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vqDDlS9Hyw
In the last seconds you can see the erratic control of Hani. BINGO
Watching a video is not a good indication of poor flying skills; planes video taped from outside don't show unsat flying skills, and look nominal.
If you were on Flight 77, it would have been clear, as Hani rolled in and out of a constant bank that the pilot was bad. You need to look at the FDR.
http://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/AAL77_fdr.pdf
Why do you use hearsay to base your BS on?
A Gish Gallop, Hani was able to fly, but you have to land on an exact course, at an exact attitude, at an exact speed, not things a terrorists pilots need to be good at. Thus, Hani's poor flying skills are what makes it easy to identify his flying in the FDR, it sucked. Hani did fly 77, and his flying was just like the instructors implied, poor, bad. Gee, he crashed, the FAA should have, take his ticket;;;
WAIT, hold the BS --- how could Hani fly anyway. When we fly, we have to go with the service instructor and show proficiency before they rent; we have to pay to fly with the instructor to get permission to fly. Gee, this mean unless Hani buys his own plane he is essentially grounded by the "FAA", aka flight instructors who are licensed by the FAA. until he convinces the service, an instructor he is safe, competent,and can fly.
BINGO - Hani was essentially grounded by the FAA - and you have no point except I see a Gish Gallop coming, because of a lack of understanding what is written, a lack of logic.
Yes, someone likes CTs and BS about, aliens, JFK, and 911. A pattern of quote mining, then full throttle Gish Gallop.
Projection, or explaining what your posts have been...
The remote control BS is proved wrong on 911. They were stock 767/757s.
Show otherwise. No remote control.
Now, the remote control failed - here comes the loud noises, as proof of what? There were no sounds of explosives on 911; another failed BS born in the fantasy of 911 truth lies.
There are no big questions on 911, only ignorance.
Remote control, is based on ignorance, and the inability to understand the facts and evidence on record.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Resolving natural inconsistencies in observation and interpretation is not "omitting a whole bunch of unfortunate truth." That's conspiracy rhetoric for focusing on minutia while ignoring the big picture entirely.
But clearly it is. You affirmatively press this approach you say you find so distasteful.
No, not by "appearances" but by your judgment.
Every single conspiracist I have debated makes exactly this argument. He doesn't want to have a conspiratorialist mindset, and he doesn't want to have these distressing beliefs, but he's dragged reluctantly and inescapably to them by their sheer objective convincing power.
It's all part of the rhetoric, Jango. It's all meant to sound like this isn't a chosen belief but one the believer has no choice but to accept, as an objective truth.
No, the rank and file sheeple aren't scared of these topics. More rhetoric.
Still more standard conspiracy rhetoric. For some inexplicable reason the results of lengthy, painstaking investigation are "politically" suspect unless they include some random detail reported onsite and interpreted at the time without the benefit of knowledge, expertise, or time to reflect.
Yes, this is your pattern.