Missile??

[Sabrina]

Well as I said positions debunkers take are always highly contextual.

But I take your point. I have never flown an aircraft and I expect it is probably very difficult to keep your eyes on a target and make minor adjustments to the controls as your approach.

Much more sensible and logical to do a major last minute bank, strike the building face absolutely perpendicular to achieve maximum entry and through the most unlikely and unfortunate of coincidences precisely mimic the flight path of automated guidance systems.

A) it wasn't perpendicular.

B) It wasn't a perfect approach; as you might recall, the North tower was hit almost dead on in the center; due to the correction the pilot of the second plane had to make, he entered the South tower at more of an angle, causing structural damage to corner struts rather than the ones going through the center of the building, which had a direct effect on how long the building was able to stay up. That's why even though it was struck second, the South tower fell first.

 

[NoahFence]

The totally absurd things that pass through a truthers head and come out as "an interesting question" never cease to amaze me.

 

[WildCat]

What is your take do you think a missile or incendiary was fired?

Please stop this idiocy... what the hell would be the point of an incendiary or even a missile when there's a giant freaking plane loaded with fuel impacting at over 400 mph?

It makes no sense whatsoever, not that you truthers ever used that as a filter for your beliefs. So long as it contradicts "the official story" you'll swallow whatever idiocy someone uploads to youtube.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I will not. You are right though perhaps I should have used the word incendiary.

Ok then, will you say its beyond a reasonable doubt then? if not why not? because I can see no basis for claiming a missile rather than, say, a cream pie throwing troll.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The purpose of having a missile or incendiary? Oh I don't know they may have wanted to ensure total penetration, we couldn't have any of those parts flying to the ground could we? So we could see it may not belong there, much easier to deny a video than the actual part. It also wouldn't make a bigger explosion would it? You know for dramatic effect?

the plane itself ensures total penetration and any war head short of a Tomahawk or nuke would make no appreciable difference to the explosion size and would look wrong in any case from the expected ballistic and fuel air explosion. If you don't think a 767 at 500mph hitting a building is more than enough dramatic effect you need to lay off the weed.

"As for Lloyde he said what he said, no one had a gun to his head. I'm convinced you guys just have a certain set of replies to things."

that because you twoofers keep asking the same silly questions year after year. As to "no gun to his head", how do you know that? CIT have not released the full footage so we have no idea what leading questions or other conversation took him to where he said that.

 

[jaydeehess]

OMG, now the plane 'might' have had a load of incindiaries on board!

That is freaking funny....... really.
As pointed out by myself (two pages ago) and several others, a Boeing 767 contains several thousand gallons of jet fuel which makes a very good incindiary and an even better office fire acellerant than solid fuel incindiaries that actually burn hotter than kerosene.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Funny, when I said that, all the JREF sceptics loudly proclaimed that they hardly banked at all.

sources?

My point at the time that banking to hit buildings perpendicular for maximum penetration was what cruise missiles are programmed to do.

source? seems doubtful as they are essentially circular in cross-section

I thought it was psychologically implausible for a human first time flyer - who would more likely just try to line up the building and go straight for it.

he wasn't a first time flier, just first time in that class of aircraft. and what you think is implausible is of little interest. Likely he saw the building on the horizon and flew straight at it, his exact orientation to it would not be clear until he was quite close and I doubt if it was of much interest in any case...the plane is going to do great damage whatever angle it hits. As it is, he nearly misses and has to bank quite hard to port to hit as he did.

The guy is about to die and kill hundreds of others, suggesting he was making calculated rational thoughts at the time is a bit of a stretch.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

through the most unlikely and unfortunate of coincidences precisely mimic the flight path of automated guidance systems.

really? source

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Yep. I am sure you can find them if you use the excellent search function.

you made the assertion, you provide the source.

However, would you like explore briefly the question of why these novice flyers took such care to make an absolute perpendicular entry?

prove that they did! In fact we only have a data set of three impacts and neither WTC2 nor the pentagon were even close to perpendicular. so with only three data points and two being not perpendicular you seem to have a poor case for claiming that the pilots took any such care at all.

 

[I Ratant]

All the recovered flight data recorder information shows very clearly when each plane was being hand-flown, and when an autopilot was doing the controlling.
Smooth lines, autopilot.
Wiggly lines, murderer.

 

[EventHorizon]

Yep. I am sure you can find them if you use the excellent search function.

Evidence that the search function is excellent?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

But I take your point. I have never flown an aircraft

clearly. However I have.

and I expect it is probably very difficult to keep your eyes on a target and make minor adjustments to the controls as your approach.

No thats what you do most of the time, what else would you look at??? at night you rely on instruments a lot or in bad weather......but it lwas bright daylight on 911. The only things one would keep an eye on would be altitude and course.....the terrorist had no interest in exactly what altitude they were at and could see what they were aiming for form probably 50 plus miles out

Much more sensible and logical to do a major last minute bank, strike the building face absolutely perpendicular

How does make sense to require a last minute maneuver to hit your target???? it adds possible error and you have not shown it provides any added benefit.

to achieve maximum entry

show this to be the case.

and through the most unlikely and unfortunate of coincidences precisely mimic the flight path of automated guidance system

says who other than you? source please or we have to assume you just made this up.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

.
Yes.
Any flier... or even a skilled automobile driver would recognize the problem with the last seconds of the flight path with UAL 175, nearly missing the building.

Duplicated it myself in Flight Simulator... I have the version with the towers in it.
Just a slight course error on the approach required the quick bank at the end.

seems possible the pilot took his eyes of HIS target to look momentarily at the other burning tower............it certainly caught the attention of everyone else at the time.

 

[GlennB]

Evidence that the search function is excellent?

The JREF search function once made my PC burst into flames. This is strong evidence of thermite. NIST didn't test for this, which proves my point.

 

[I Ratant]

The plane was hand-flown from the takeover.
Getting the correct heading to impact the tower perpendicularly (HA!) would have placed it more to the east on the approach over the harbor.
As it was, the final flight path had a 14° degree relation to perpendicular.
From some distance out, this may have not been all that apparent as to the position of the plane relative to the building but in the final few seconds, it would be apparent.

 

[Dash80]

The JREF search function once made my PC burst into flames. This is strong evidence of thermite. NIST didn't test for this, which proves my point.

Are you absolutely sure? Did you see a tiny remote controlled pod-carrying plane launch a missile at your monitor? Was there a flash before the little toy plane hit your PC?

 

[Dash80]

The plane was hand-flown from the takeover.
Getting the correct heading to impact the tower perpendicularly (HA!) would have placed it more to the east on the approach over the harbor.
As it was, the final flight path had a 14° degree relation to perpendicular.
From some distance out, this may have not been all that apparent as to the position of the plane relative to the building but in the final few seconds, it would be apparent.

God those Flight Sim pics are scary. In my mind I can see the passengers looking out the windows and seeing the burning north tower as they rushed ever closer.

 

[GlennB]

Are you absolutely sure? Did you see a tiny remote controlled pod-carrying plane launch a missile at your monitor? Was there a flash before the little toy plane hit your PC?

It's 50/50. The search function cannot eliminate space beams as the culprit.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

God those Flight Sim pics are scary. In my mind I can see the passengers looking out the windows and seeing the burning north tower as they rushed ever closer.

Luckily you can't see that dead ahead......better that they never knew.

 

[cyclonic]

The terrorists nearly missed WTC 2 due to the Coriolis effect.

http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/visualizations/es1904/es1904page01.cfm