NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[dadeets]

Probability matters little when we're talking about an event that has already been established to happen. I can cite the 1 in 800,000+ odds of a human being struck by lightning all I want, but if I'm doing that to refute a specific instance, and the poor man is laying on the ground with smoke rising from him, and we have video evidence of the strike, it doesn't matter what the odds were. The event happened. At that point, the burden is on the claimant to disprove the event. And good luck doing so without confronting the existent evidence.

This is where you are wrong. It’s clearest if we discus the probability of a novice pilot striking the tower in a Boeing flying 150 KEAS over Vmo. If one takes the view that we know it happened, therefore assign it an after-the-fact probability of something like 999 out of 1,000, it’s not being very helpful in figuring this out. In this case, the reason for only giving it a 999 is, I presume, that leaves room for the 1 out of 1,000 that what we “know” is possibly not in fact true on an important detail such as, was it really a novice pilot.

The probability does matter if there is any interest in judging if this whole thing has any possibility of being true. A probability number should be based on a before-the-event perspective, using what informed information can be brought to bear. If that were the case in the 999 out of 1,000, it would equivalent to maintaining that, if a thousand Boeings flew this fast with novice pilots at the controls, we would expect all but one of them to strike the tower.

Since I don’t come anywhere close to agreeing with that, I instead make an estimate of about 1 out of 1,000 probability, and have explained why in previous posts.

 

[tfk]

My favorite definition of "A fact":
(thanks to Steven J. Gould)

Fact: something that has been demonstrated to such an extent that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.

Utter nonsense.
Nobody was modifying any 767 to it to fly at 510 mph into the towers.
They would have used a standard 767 and flown it at 410 mph into the towers.

Well, I must say, this is a new experience for me. In all my years involved in flight safety reviews, I’ve never seen such “throwing conservatism out the window” as I’m seeing in these JREFers’ responses.

In this particular item, I can see very well the perpetrators could have been looking for a way to make it appear to be on the fringe, on the borderline between the possible and the impossible.

We have a litany of THOUSANDS of previous terrorist acts that have killed hundreds of thousands of people for the sole purpose of bringing destruction to others for some political agenda.

As far as I know, precisely zero number of such acts have been constructed in such a way as to "appear to be on the borderline between the possible & the impossible". They have been simple, sledgehammer-between-the-eyes blunt acts of murderous violence.

Exactly like the acts of 9/11.

Who are these perpetrators that you see being moved by this (IMO) strange & pointless desire to make things "appear near-impossible"?

What goal of the perpetrators is achieved by their (utterly doomed ahead of time & failed after the fact) attempt to make the events "appear near-impossible"?

I am sure that you meant something serious when you offered this statement. But I must confess that I don't see any explanation that is the slightest bit defensible.

Please explain your postulation in sufficient detail that you will not leave me convinced that you have produced another grasping-at-absurd-straws red herring.

Now, a conservative approach treats this as a legitimate possibility. The way I do that is to take it into account when I pick a conditional probability number for this part of my joint probability estimate.

I will have to wait to see what perpetrators & purpose you propose before I can offer a comment on whether or not your postulate meets the level of "legitimate possibility".
____

In the meantime...

The ground that you are staking is NOT "conservative engineering".

Conservative engineering looks at the big picture, all the facts, and puts them together in the most logical, most self-consistent & most comprehensible way possible, constrained by engineering & scientific principles.

Conservative engineering does not grasp at straws. It does not depend on never-before-seen motivations. It does not depend on "what we don't know" anomalies, but rather "what we do know" facts.

Such as the specific facts that numerous people here have placed at your feet, requested that you address, and which, to the 90th percentile, you have chosen to ignore.

The stance that you are taking specifically ignores the big picture, ignores 99% of the known facts, is utterly self-contradictory, is incomprehensible (by virtue of the fact that you haven't attempted to construct any comprehensive, consistent story), and is based, as far as I can see, on zero engineering or scientific principles, but solely upon your personal incredulity and speculation.

The stance that you are taking is the polar opposite of "conservative engineering".

It is "perverse contrarianism".

My arguments ARE "conservative engineering". You've got a fair bit of gall to suggest otherwise, considering the lack of substance in your replies.

A competent working engineer would be embarrassed by the dearth of substance in the arguments that you've offered to date. Perhaps you could make a conscious effort to address the many specifics that many folks have presented to you with some thoughtful responses.


Tom

 

[BigAl]

This is where you are wrong. It’s clearest if we discus the probability of a novice pilot striking the tower in a Boeing flying 150 KEAS over Vmo. If one takes the view that we know it happened, therefore assign it an after-the-fact probability of something like 999 out of 1,000, it’s not being very helpful in figuring this out. In this case, the reason for only giving it a 999 is, I presume, that leaves room for the 1 out of 1,000 that what we “know” is possibly not in fact true on an important detail such as, was it really a novice pilot.

The probability does matter if there is any interest in judging if this whole thing has any possibility of being true. A probability number should be based on a before-the-event perspective, using what informed information can be brought to bear. If that were the case in the 999 out of 1,000, it would equivalent to maintaining that, if a thousand Boeings flew this fast with novice pilots at the controls, we would expect all but one of them to strike the tower.

Since I don’t come anywhere close to agreeing with that, I instead make an estimate of about 1 out of 1,000 probability, and have explained why in previous posts.

Did you ever take a class in applied probability?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

This is where you are wrong. It’s clearest if we discus the probability of a novice pilot striking the tower in a Boeing flying 150 KEAS over Vmo. If one takes the view that we know it happened, therefore assign it an after-the-fact probability of something like 999 out of 1,000, it’s not being very helpful in figuring this out. In this case, the reason for only giving it a 999 is, I presume, that leaves room for the 1 out of 1,000 that what we “know” is possibly not in fact true on an important detail such as, was it really a novice pilot.

The probability does matter if there is any interest in judging if this whole thing has any possibility of being true. A probability number should be based on a before-the-event perspective, using what informed information can be brought to bear. If that were the case in the 999 out of 1,000, it would equivalent to maintaining that, if a thousand Boeings flew this fast with novice pilots at the controls, we would expect all but one of them to strike the tower.

Since I don’t come anywhere close to agreeing with that, I instead make an estimate of about 1 out of 1,000 probability, and have explained why in previous posts.

As the saying goes: If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, try to baffle them with BS. For starters, I'm amazed you are seriously trying to apply a probabilistic analysis to deterministic elements of an event. That's the "baffle with BS" I'm referring to. You were given precedents for jets exceeding the speed you mistakenly believe they cannot exceed, you've been given precedents for control authority remaining at those speeds as well. Whether a plane is controllable over a certain speed is demonstrated. There is nothing probabilistic about jets flying that fast - the evidence was given to you already - there's nothing probabilistic about hijackers choosing to manipulate flight controls to steer jets towards buildings, and there certainly is nothing probabilistic about radar records showing jets flightpaths from takeoff to landing.

The ultimate problem is, your argument is an attempt to disprove the details of an event via statements of probability after those event's details have already been proven. As many have said earlier in the thread: We already have the radar data, the airfone calls (which serve the dual purpose of not only identifying the flights, but also showing us they were hijacked), the videos of the jets impacting, the post event reconstruction of the hijackers pre-event movements... the list goes on and on. What you are doing is akin to me sitting at a poker table, seeing a straight flush land, and say "No, I don't believe it can happen; that's only a 1 in 72,192 probability". The cards are on the table. The event has occurred.

Actually, even that is not a perfect illustration. At least poker is a stochastic system, so it's proper to discuss odds. But what is supposed to be random about a jet being flown at a given speed and steered towards a given target?

In sum: Application of probability to an event that not only has already occurred, but has been demonstrated to have occurred, is simply madness. Or lunacy; take your pick. Regardless, it's not aiding your understanding at all. It's simply serving as a shield behind which you hide from the evidence establishing the occurance of the event.

 

[tfk]

This is where you are wrong. It’s clearest if we discus the probability of a novice pilot striking the tower in a Boeing flying 150 KEAS over Vmo.

ALL of your arguments refute themselves.

1. We know for a fact that it was a Boeing 767-222 that flew into the towers.
Probability: 100%.
Evidence: video record.

2. We know to a near certainty that it was an unmodified B727.
Probability: 99.9%.
Evidence: Reason.
No aeronautical engineering professional is going to embark on a >$50 million project to modify a stock 767 to allow it to fly, for 1 minute or so, 150 KEAS over Vmo. An aeronautical engineering professional is going to simply fly the plane at or below Vmo, & keep his $50 million. And eliminate the virtual certainty that he will be discovered & crushed as a result.

3. We know to a near certainty that it was an unmodified B727.
Probability: 99.99%.
Evidence: Reason.
The number of aeronautical professionals required to modify the plane for any such nefarious purposes would be on the order of 100. The possibility of finding that number of engineers & pilots with the appropriate expertise, willing to participate knowingly in this treacherous act, is zero. The number of engineers & pilots who might have participated unknowingly in such a program, but not recognized the possible implications of their work sufficiently to inform the FAA / FBI / government on 9/12/01 is zero.

4. We know to a near certainty that those planes were NOT modified, inside or out, in any substantial way.
Probability: 99.99%.
Evidence: Multiple physical inspections of the planes.
The planes were inspected by pilots & serviced by maintenance personnel many times in the year before 9/11. Any modifications made would have been immediately evident to maintenance personnel.

5. We know to a near certainty that the pilot was inexperienced in flying large jets.
Probability: 99.9%.
Evidence: Reason.
Any professional pilot would immediately recognize the danger of flying that fast, and would not have risked his entire purpose - the purpose for which he sacrificed his life - on the chance that the plane might not hold together at those high speeds.
ONLY an amateur, whether in the cockpit or in some fanciful remote location, would have flown the plane at that speed.

6. We know to a near certainty that the pilot was inexperienced in flying large jets.
Probability: 99%
Evidence: RADES radar altitude data.
The pilot was unable to execute a professional change in altitude.
ONLY an amateur, whether in the cockpit or in some fanciful remote location, would have flown the plane in that unprofessional manner.

7. It is relatively easy for certified but inexperienced pilots to hit large buildings on their first attempt in a mid-sized jet.
Probability: 100%. (… to date.)
Evidence: Historical record.
We have 3 low time pilots who got into the left seats of 3 commercial jets and made it to their targets on 9/11. All three of them were able to successfully hit the building at which they were aiming. This conclusion has been reinforced by experiments conducted in simulators.
___

Results

Conclusion 1: The plane that hit the south tower was an unmodified B727-222.

Conclusion 2: The plane that hit the south tower flew at the NIST reported high speed.

Conclusion 3: The plane was clearly controllable at that speed.

Conclusion 4: The pilot was inexperienced in flying large jets.

Conclusion 5: It is not terribly difficult for inexperienced pilots to climb into the pilot's seat of a modern commercial jet & steer it into a large target.

Conclusion 6: Boeing makes excellent jets. Easy to fly & rugged with respect to overspeed conditions.

Conclusion 7: You, Mr. Deets, are very, very poor at estimating odds related to multiple facets of determined terrorist attacks using commercial jets.

Conclusion 8: You, Mr. Deets, are terrible at defending your assertions of the odds that you proffer, as shown by your lack of any meaningful attempt here to muster a defense of your assertions.

I invite you to refute any of these conclusions. Hopefully with some thought.


Tom

 

[ElMondoHummus]

ALL of your arguments refute themselves.

1. We know for a fact that it was a Boeing 767-222 that flew into the towers.
Probability: 100%.
Evidence: video record.
(rest snipped)
Tom

Dang it, Tom, I spent a lot of time composing a post arguing against the acceptibility of using probabilistic analysis on the event, and you go and drag it back in!

Kidding, man. Kidding . Anyway, minor question: Did you mean 767-222 (or 223ER, as AA11 was) , or "762" (as some Boeing fans call that specific model) when you said "B727"?

 

[dadeets]

You were given precedents for jets exceeding the speed you mistakenly believe they cannot exceed, you've been given precedents for control authority remaining at those speeds as well. Whether a plane is controllable over a certain speed is demonstrated.

It is much more than a question of control authority remaining. Controllability gets into the fields of Stability and Control, and Flying Qualities. Rather than prolong this discussion, I will devote some time to these matters. There are design tools available to estimate the handling qualities for a wide variety of aircraft, including transports. Meanwhile, you can do a literature search into the "Cooper-Harper" scale. That will give you some understanding of the topic applicable to this area of concern.

 

[DGM]

It is much more than a question of control authority remaining. Controllability gets into the fields of Stability and Control, and Flying Qualities. Rather than prolong this discussion, I will devote some time to these matters. There are design tools available to estimate the handling qualities for a wide variety of aircraft, including transports. Meanwhile, you can do a literature search into the "Cooper-Harper" scale. That will give you some understanding of the topic applicable to this area of concern.

Can we expect some real data from test pilots of the actual aircraft types? If not, why mention "Cooper-Harper"?

 

[R.Mackey]

It is much more than a question of control authority remaining. Controllability gets into the fields of Stability and Control, and Flying Qualities. Rather than prolong this discussion, I will devote some time to these matters. There are design tools available to estimate the handling qualities for a wide variety of aircraft, including transports. Meanwhile, you can do a literature search into the "Cooper-Harper" scale. That will give you some understanding of the topic applicable to this area of concern.

These questions have been answered. Real-world aircraft matching the 9/11 aircraft have been flown and were controllable beyond what was seen on 9/11. The human factors challenge has been tested. You're just arguing for the fun of arguing at this point.

Regarding your made-up probabilities, what truly rankles about your whole attitude is that your argument is ultimately circular.

Think about it. You argue that you're suspicious (or choose your own word, any will do) about the "official story" because you feel it is unlikely.

We ask you to justify your feelings. What do you do? You come back with a bunch of made-up probabilities, none of which has any grounding in reality whatsoever, none of which you've been able to justify in any way. The only outcome is a tiny number, one you haven't budged from despite being shown numerous counterexamples. That is your whole justification.

In other words, you feel the 9/11 story was improbable because... you feel the 9/11 story was improbable.

This is not the least bit interesting, and utterly contrary to the Scientific Method. Your opinion is worthless without support. You've brought no support. And that's how it appears this conversation is going to end.

 

[beachnut]

It is much more than a question of control authority remaining. Controllability gets into the fields of Stability and Control, and Flying Qualities. Rather than prolong this discussion, I will devote some time to these matters. There are design tools available to estimate the handling qualities for a wide variety of aircraft, including transports. Meanwhile, you can do a literature search into the "Cooper-Harper" scale. That will give you some understanding of the topic applicable to this area of concern.

Are you going to retract your failed claims before going off on tangents? What will be next, orbital mechanics for Judy Wood's beam weapon?

http://www.mae.wmich.edu/faculty/Ro/ME540/FQ.pdf

http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/labs/halab/papers/Cummings2006_uvs_FINAL.pdf


Did you wonder why such poor flying techniques of Ziad Jarrah and Hani Hanjour did not diverge in a dutch-roll and break engines off? Because the 767/757 are modern jets with outstanding handing characteristics. Sorry, the Boeing Jets are strong and robust, and can reach speed in excess of Vmo and function; I have flown a Boeing Jet over Vmo, it worked better, it handled better, it flew fast at 500 feet.

Based on how poorly Ziad Jarrah and Hani Hanjour flew, the Cooper-Harper rating for a 767/757 is better than 1, impossible but true. After analyzing the terrible control inputs, the 757/767 aircraft almost fly themselves because Ziad Jarrah and Hani Hanjour did everything to fail, and the planes never stopped working and flying. Flight 11 and 175, must of had the better terrorist pilots, their planes did not weave and bob all over the sky like Hani, and did not crash like Ziad Jarrah. You really need to study the FDRs before you try and teach aerodynamics to skeptics who know you have no evidence to support your claims on 911.

The 767/757 have a rating of 1. This is why flight 175 terrorist pilot hit the WTC, it was too easy.

Are you going to school us on aerodynamics? You have failed to prove any of your implied claims! You need to study up before going on some tangent, and try to save your failed claims, or retract your failed ideas.
You implied Flight 175 can't do 510 knots and hit the WTC, it did.
You implied Flight 175 was out of service, it was not.
You implied Flight 175 was modified, you have no evidence.
You implied the ELTs going off were some sort of anomaly, the planes used on 911 had no automatic ELTs.

Got more false claims about ELTs? That was very bad, for someone from NASA not to have the knowledge of what is on planes, not able to look it up before making or supporting false statements.

You have not shown any of your implied claims to be true, and have failed to present facts and evidence. Why are you going tangential on handing qualities, when you have not explained why you were wrong on so many topics, including ELTs, and out of service aircraft? Did you like the photos of the planes you implied were out of service? Is this a smokescreen so you don't have to retract your false claims?

The modern Boeing Jets have outstanding handing qualities, and might be a big reason terrorists picked Boeing Jets, the 767/757 to use as weapons.

 

[dadeets]

You argue that you're suspicious (or choose your own word, any will do) about the "official story" because you feel it is unlikely.

We ask you to justify your feelings. What do you do? You come back with a bunch of made-up probabilities, none of which has any grounding in reality whatsoever, none of which you've been able to justify in any way. The only outcome is a tiny number, one you haven't budged from despite being shown numerous counterexamples. That is your whole justification.

Let’s say I’m skeptical. I’m skeptical of a specific part of it, in this case, UA175, firstly because of the context. I think Lt. Col Robert Bowman (ret.) says it best, and I quote:

If the United States Government had done nothing at all, and let normal procedures happen, the airliners would have been intercepted, the World Trade Towers and Pentagon would not have been hit, and thousands of lives would have been saved.” …but the US Government DID DO SOMETHING, they triggered organizational and operational changes to scramble protocols in June of 2001...but subtly so. And it’s these changes that allowed the airliners to reach their targets.​

Secondly, I know from my experience in aircraft flight control, that hitting a tower at that high airspeed while “hand flying,” without some advanced guidance or control assistance set up for that purpose – would be extremely difficult.

Thirdly, I later hear of some anecdotal account from a retired career pilot.

He told of hanging out at a flight training school, and that the pilots who were there were simply renewing their licenses. They were taking turns with the flight simulator to try to hit the WTC towers at the speeds that were reported on 9/11. None of them could hit a tower. Then the instructor himself took a crack at it. It took him 10 tries to finally hit one. They described it as trying to thread a needle at 500 knots.

These, if you wish, can be characterized as my “feeling.” I characterize it as my informed entry point in an exercise of critical thinking. I chose to use probability estimates as a means of communicating my thinking process. This anecdotal account above is an example of providing some “grounding in reality.” Of course, more effort could be taken to refine these estimates. With more refinement would come a basis for adjusting the probability estimates, either higher or lower.

 

[R.Mackey]

Let’s say I’m skeptical. I’m skeptical of a specific part of it, in this case, UA175, firstly because of the context. I think Lt. Col Robert Bowman (ret.) says it best, and I quote:

If the United States Government had done nothing at all, and let normal procedures happen, the airliners would have been intercepted, the World Trade Towers and Pentagon would not have been hit, and thousands of lives would have been saved.” …but the US Government DID DO SOMETHING, they triggered organizational and operational changes to scramble protocols in June of 2001...but subtly so. And it’s these changes that allowed the airliners to reach their targets.​

This is hearsay.

Evidence tells a much different story. Prior to September 11th -- including prior to June 2001 -- scrambles over the Continental USA have a very poor track record when the time-to-intercept is as small as it was on September 11th. Similarly, the ATC logs and testimony of pilots and controllers prove just how difficult a problem it was. Dr. Bowman's assertion that the airliners would have been intercepted had everything been normal is contradicted by fact, and unsupported by anything but his own opinion.

Even assuming this was not the case, this line of argument goes nowhere. You started this thread arguing that the WTC 2 impact couldn't have been UA 175, or had to be highly modified, on physics grounds. How does this argument support it? It doesn't! IF, as your latest unsupported claim insists, the US Air Force was subtly prevented from making an intercept, there would be no reason whatsoever to modify anything or use a different plane. You've shifted to an entirely different line of "reasoning," such as it is.

I asked you to support your earlier belief. You failed to do so. Now you bring a whole new, unsupported belief. This only weakens your position, and reveals the familiar pattern of conspiracy thinking.

Secondly, I know from my experience in aircraft flight control, that hitting a tower at that high airspeed while “hand flying,” without some advanced guidance or control assistance set up for that purpose – would be extremely difficult.

This is also hearsay.

Aircraft are "hand flown" at lower altitudes, comparable speeds, and with similar or better precision requirements all the time. Airshows. Hot-dogging fighter pilots flying under bridges. Air races.

Just because you personally think it's "difficult" doesn't amount to an argument. A friend of mine is currently going through test pilot school at Edwards AFB, a place you should know well, and he thinks he could have done it with two fingers on the yoke. Why should I believe you and not him? You've provided no reason to believe you at all.

And again, even if it is difficult, it doesn't mean it's impossible. The evidence tells us that it happened. To make us ignore all of the evidence, you need much, much more than a feeling that it's unlikely.

Thirdly, I later hear of some anecdotal account from a retired career pilot.

He told of hanging out at a flight training school, and that the pilots who were there were simply renewing their licenses. They were taking turns with the flight simulator to try to hit the WTC towers at the speeds that were reported on 9/11. None of them could hit a tower. Then the instructor himself took a crack at it. It took him 10 tries to finally hit one. They described it as trying to thread a needle at 500 knots.

Anecdotal evidence is hearsay, by definition.

Once again, Frank Vos at NLR put an untrained individual in a heavy jet simulator, to see if it was reasonable for a novice to hit the Pentagon. This is a harder target than the Towers. The test subject succeeded in 3 out of 3 tests. It's not only possible, the evidence suggests that it's easy.

Not hearsay, evidence. The test was filmed and can be repeated.

You lose, sir.

These, if you wish, can be characterized as my “feeling.” I characterize it as my informed entry point in an exercise of critical thinking. I chose to use probability estimates as a means of communicating my thinking process. This anecdotal account above is an example of providing some “grounding in reality.” Of course, more effort could be taken to refine these estimates. With more refinement would come a basis for adjusting the probability estimates, either higher or lower.

The effort has been taken, the estimates have been refined, and the conclusion is the exact opposite of your "feeling." All that remains is the question of why you reject it. You have no evidence, by your own admission.

 

[beachnut]

Let’s say I’m skeptical. I’m skeptical of a specific part of it, in this case, UA175, firstly because of the context. I think Lt. Col Robert Bowman (ret.) says it best, and I quote:

If the United States Government had done nothing at all, and let normal procedures happen, the airliners would have been intercepted, the World Trade Towers and Pentagon would not have been hit, and thousands of lives would have been saved.” …but the US Government DID DO SOMETHING, they triggered organizational and operational changes to scramble protocols in June of 2001...but subtly so. And it’s these changes that allowed the airliners to reach their targets.

That is a lie, the government did not change procedures which allowed the airliners to reach their targets. Bowman is making up lies. NORAD has been discussed here and it proves Bowman has delusions on 911. You should research this more before spreading false information.

Secondly, I know from my experience in aircraft flight control, that hitting a tower at that high airspeed while “hand flying,” without some advanced guidance or control assistance set up for that purpose – would be extremely difficult.

I worked in the Flight Dynamics Laboratory, and in my experience the flight controls in a 767/757 made it possible to hit the WTC towers while hand flying. Your statement is false, you have no experience or you would know how easy it is to fly 767/757 and hit targets as wide as runways.

No need for advanced guidance, our eyes and hands are the most advanced guidance needed in VFR conditions. Your experience is wrong, it is extremely easy to do the flying done on 911. I started flying heavy jets (300,000 pound category) in 1976, when did you get experience in heavy jets. I attended AFIT for my masters in 1981 and worked with experts in flight controls and have lots of experience in flight controls from being a pilot and an engineer.

Thirdly, I later hear of some anecdotal account from a retired career pilot.

He told of hanging out at a flight training school, and that the pilots who were there were simply renewing their licenses. They were taking turns with the flight simulator to try to hit the WTC towers at the speeds that were reported on 9/11. None of them could hit a tower. Then the instructor himself took a crack at it. It took him 10 tries to finally hit one. They described it as trying to thread a needle at 500 knots.

I would never fly with those pilots; the terrorists hit the WTC towers their first flight in heavy jets, and your anecdotal account has experienced pilots who can only do it 10 percent of the time. They must be poor pilots.
I was an instructor pilot and evaluator pilot in the USAF, and not one of the hundreds of pilots I know thinks it is difficult to hit the WTC towers with a 767/757. You need to ask real pilots and not paranoid conspiracy theorist pilots. I have hosted many kids during orientation visits in the USAF. The kids were able to fly a heavy jet and hit a 300 foot runway configured for landing, the first time and never flew before. Hitting the runway at slow speed is harder than fast. After 911 I heard some idiotic claims the terrorists could not fly good enough to crash, so... I took a kid in her teens into a simulator and she hit the WTC towers the first pass at 500 knots, and she had never flown before; here boyfriend did the same.

Looks like the kids I know are better pilots without training than your anecdotal BS story.

BTW, pilots don't renew their licenses, next time get more technical on what those pilots who can't hit runway sized objects were doing and report them to the FAA as bad pilots.

These, if you wish, can be characterized as my “feeling.” I characterize it as my informed entry point in an exercise of critical thinking. I chose to use probability estimates as a means of communicating my thinking process. This anecdotal account above is an example of providing some “grounding in reality.” Of course, more effort could be taken to refine these estimates. With more refinement would come a basis for adjusting the probability estimates, either higher or lower.

Your anecdotal account is an example of someone making up a story to mislead you. If a pilot can't hit an object as wide as a runway, he should not be flying. The probability of the four planes crashing on 911 was 100 percent after the terrorists killed 8 pilots.

The probability of the terrorist hitting their targets was 75 percent.
The probability of the pilots you know hitting a target as wide as a runway, zero to 10 percent.

My recommendation is not to fly with the pilots you know, the pilots I know are are good at aiming, even the washed out pilots I know were able to "hit" the runway; however in the USAF we prefer to land on runways, not hit them. Feelings, anadotal evidence, and hearsay are not evidence to support your failed ideas on 911.


When will you retract and explain the false ELT information?

It has been proved the planes were not out of service, when will you retract that false information?

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Let’s say I’m skeptical. I’m skeptical of a specific part of it, in this case, UA175

No, let’s not say you’re sceptical about the conditions effecting UA175. You gave your initial reasons why you were sceptical about UA175 and each and everyone has been, thoroughly, shown to be wrong.

You have been offered, on many occasions, the opportunity to modify or retract these reasons and the methodology you used to arrive at your conclusion, based on the information you have been given. So far you have failed to respond to these requests preferring instead to then attempt to shift the argument on to other areas each of which, in turn, has also been shown to be wrong.

You are now seeking to substantiate your “skepticism” by introducing various unsubstantiated here-say argumentation. Whilst at the same time leaving your initial refuted claims just laying there.

These are not the actions of a sceptic; they are the actions of someone with a predefined agenda.

Do you really think that anyone reading this thread will not draw that conclusion?

I will once again extend to you the offer to do the honourable thing to revisit your initial claims and modify or retract them.

Woof!

 

[Reheat]

Let’s say I’m skeptical.

There is nothing at all wrong with being skeptical, however the reasons you've given for being skeptical have all been shown to be WRONG. This latest from Robert Bowman is yet another one.

Do you even know what the JCS Instruction changes in June (to which he refers) were? I dare say you don't because they had ABSOLUTELY nothing at all to do with why there were no intercepts of the aircraft on 9/11. You have been duped again by another twoofer opinion apparently due to a predetermined agenda.

This thread ought to be embarrassing to you by now. The basis for your opinions (the reasons you've stated) have been demonstratively shown to be WRONG on virtually all of the issues that have been discussed. Yet you've made no additional arguments, except to shift to another argument which are also being show to be wrong one after the other. You also have not admitted fault for using false information which is very typical twoofer behavior.

In case you don't know a lot of folks read these threads to form opinions. Don't you wonder what their opinions might be at seeing you get soundly hammered in this thread?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Let’s say I’m skeptical. I’m skeptical of a specific part of it, in this case, UA175, firstly because of the context.

I'm sorry sir, but what you display is not skepticism. It's selective credulity. What you go on to say demonstrates this:

I think Lt. Col Robert Bowman (ret.) says it best, and I quote:

If the United States Government had done nothing at all, and let normal procedures happen, the airliners would have been intercepted, the World Trade Towers and Pentagon would not have been hit, and thousands of lives would have been saved.” …but the US Government DID DO SOMETHING, they triggered organizational and operational changes to scramble protocols in June of 2001...but subtly so. And it’s these changes that allowed the airliners to reach their targets.
​

Protocols were not scrambled. Normal procedures did in fact happen. Vague allegations of such tampering is refuted by detailed study of the response on that day. Remedial reading is required here:

• http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70300
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1845150&postcount=1
• http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/norad,faa,ntsb,aircraftcapabilities,pilo
• http://911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

Secondly, I know from my experience in aircraft flight control, that hitting a tower at that high airspeed while “hand flying,” without some advanced guidance or control assistance set up for that purpose – would be extremely difficult.

And yet, flight instructor Marcel Bernard thinks otherwise. Ditto Ken Hertz, 757/767 rated airline pilot, and Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series.

Thirdly, I later hear of some anecdotal account from a retired career pilot.

He told of hanging out at a flight training school, and that the pilots who were there were simply renewing their licenses. They were taking turns with the flight simulator to try to hit the WTC towers at the speeds that were reported on 9/11. None of them could hit a tower. Then the instructor himself took a crack at it. It took him 10 tries to finally hit one. They described it as trying to thread a needle at 500 knots.

And yet, the testimony of the above pilots says otherwise. So where expert opinion reaches a standoff, you look at the evidence. And multiple, converging lines of evidence puts hijackers in the cockpits and the jets into the towers. Suicide videos, calls from airfones (calls which we have demonstrated exist), video from the airport, a reconstruction of their movements prior to 9/11, etc. Continued skepticism in the face of evidence to the contrary is misplaced and mispracticed skepticism. You have the evidence. You're not refuting it, nor are you even attempting to analyze your position in the face of it. As I said above, that is not skepticism, that is misplaced credulity.

These, if you wish, can be characterized as my “feeling.” I characterize it as my informed entry point in an exercise of critical thinking.

Unfortunately, you are not allowing data to inform your process of critical thinking. You are merely proceeding from badly incomplete a priori knowledge and acting as though that's the only data needed. We are demonstrating to you that it is not. An honest skeptic would reasses in the face of credible data.

I chose to use probability estimates as a means of communicating my thinking process. This anecdotal account above is an example of providing some “grounding in reality.” Of course, more effort could be taken to refine these estimates. With more refinement would come a basis for adjusting the probability estimates, either higher or lower.

At some point, you need to incorporate the data points you're being given. Every bit of 9/11 history you've so far brought to bear, from the airfone calls to verifiable details about that days events you have gotten wrong. Worse yet, you've merely and naively trusted sources like David Ray Griffin (the source of the airfone conspiracy myths), Avery, Bermas, and Rowe (the creators of the video Loose Change, one of the sources for such myths as the "difficult maneuvers" myth you stated above) and the like with applying anywhere near the same levelof skepticism that you apply to the demonstrated, supported history of the event. It's one thing to be uninformed and work skeptically from that point of view, but it's a whole other level to merely trust the conspiracy peddlers without attempting to study their claims for veracity.

And this is why I call what you practice "selective credulity". True skepticism works from evidence. All you have done is cite myth and refuted hypotheses. There's nothing truly skeptical at all about your approach. And posts replying to your statements, such as the ones preceeding mine, are a testiment to that.

--------

And to other truthers out there: This is the man you've peddled as being an expert who's experience and knowledge should earn respect for the conspiratorial viewpoint. Yet, he's not only cited the very same canards as the rest of you, he's actually argued them worse than you have. Again: Why do you peddle his name? He's brought little to bear from his expertise that isn't refutable from current, public knowledge, and the bulk of his replies here have merely been rehashing the same ground many of you abandoned a long time ago as untenable. So again: Why push his name? He's not only done nothing that you all couldn't have, he's demonstrated exactly why your proclaimations of expertise and authority should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. So why?

 

[Sabretooth]

Let’s say I’m skeptical. I’m skeptical of a specific part of it, in this case, UA175, firstly because of the context. I think Lt. Col Robert Bowman (ret.) says it best, and I quote:

If the United States Government had done nothing at all, and let normal procedures happen, the airliners would have been intercepted, the World Trade Towers and Pentagon would not have been hit, and thousands of lives would have been saved.” …but the US Government DID DO SOMETHING, they triggered organizational and operational changes to scramble protocols in June of 2001...but subtly so. And it’s these changes that allowed the airliners to reach their targets.​

How is this so? The timeline of events on 9/11 are rather obvious in that the intercepting fighters had zero chances of identifying, locating, intercepting, and then making a decision any of those planes.

IIRC, the Otis fighters would have had approximately 10 minutes to go wheels up, ID the target, fly 150+ miles, and intercept AA11...it was never going to happen.

 

[dadeets]

At some point, you need to incorporate the data points you're being given. Every bit of 9/11 history you've so far brought to bear, from the airfone calls to verifiable details about that days events you have gotten wrong. Worse yet, you've merely and naively trusted sources like David Ray Griffin (the source of the airfone conspiracy myths), Avery, Bermas, and Rowe (the creators of the video Loose Change, one of the sources for such myths as the "difficult maneuvers" myth you stated above) and the like with applying anywhere near the same levelof skepticism that you apply to the demonstrated, supported history of the event. It's one thing to be uninformed and work skeptically from that point of view, but it's a whole other level to merely trust the conspiracy peddlers without attempting to study their claims for veracity.

I state my reasons for being skeptical, and therefore find justified in being more deliberate in the critical thinking process.

What I see you all doing is arguing why my reasons for being skeptical are not valid.

After reading your various arguments, I find my skepticism did not diminish.

Now, as I proceed further with my critical thinking, let me remind everyone, I only ask for a new independent investigation. Is that too much to ask?

I am asking for no more than the Colorado Democratic Party asks. They have adopted, as part of their party platform, the following statement:

"Whereas many disturbing facts were consciously ignored by the 9/11 Commission; Be it resolved, therefore, that the CDP calls for the establishment of a truly independent Grand Jury and public investigation into these and other anomalies in order to find the truth of the September 11, 2001 attacks, so that we have a greater probability of preventing attacks of this nature in the future."

 

[R.Mackey]

I state my reasons for being skeptical, and therefore find justified in being more deliberate in the critical thinking process.

What I see you all doing is arguing why my reasons for being skeptical are not valid.

... reasons that you have been unable to contest. Your approach was to come up with brand new claims, and fail to support them either.

After reading your various arguments, I find my skepticism did not diminish.

That's not something to be proud of. It only confirms what we knew all along, namely that your "skepticism" isn't based on evidence or reasoning. This isn't skepticism at all. It's cynicism. It's also worthless. You can be as stubborn as you want, but the simple fact is you have no evidence for your claims.

Now, as I proceed further with my critical thinking, let me remind everyone, I only ask for a new independent investigation. Is that too much to ask?

You ask without understanding the results of the many existing investigations, all of which came to the same conclusion.

No one is required to re-investigate until you're happy. If you want to start your own, go for it, but please try to learn about what you're studying before making sweeping conclusions.

I am asking for no more than the Colorado Democratic Party asks. They have adopted, as part of their party platform, the following statement:

"Whereas many disturbing facts were consciously ignored by the 9/11 Commission; Be it resolved, therefore, that the CDP calls for the establishment of a truly independent Grand Jury and public investigation into these and other anomalies in order to find the truth of the September 11, 2001 attacks, so that we have a greater probability of preventing attacks of this nature in the future."

We had another thread about this here. It doesn't mean what you think it means. They're interested in failures of intelligence, not some far-out tale about "highly modified" 767's, a stand-down of NORAD, who-knows-what trickery at the Pentagon, all woven so intricately that you can't even articulate what it is you do believe clearly.

You're so desperate for any excuse to keep your beliefs, you even misunderstood a political party goal statement. It doesn't get much more removed from science than that.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I state my reasons for being skeptical, and therefore find justified in being more deliberate in the critical thinking process.

What I see you all doing is arguing why my reasons for being skeptical are not valid.

After reading your various arguments, I find my skepticism did not diminish.

Now, as I proceed further with my critical thinking, let me remind everyone, I only ask for a new independent investigation. Is that too much to ask?

I am asking for no more than the Colorado Democratic Party asks. They have adopted, as part of their party platform, the following statement:

"Whereas many disturbing facts were consciously ignored by the 9/11 Commission; Be it resolved, therefore, that the CDP calls for the establishment of a truly independent Grand Jury and public investigation into these and other anomalies in order to find the truth of the September 11, 2001 attacks, so that we have a greater probability of preventing attacks of this nature in the future."

Your reasons for being skeptical are not valid. That's what we've been pointing out to you over and over again.

You cannot build properly informed skepticism on false premises. Yet that is exactly what you are doing here: Taking outright distortions about the events, such as distortion about airfones, your propagation of the standard truther lies about the BTS data, your mistaken assertion regarding controllability, etc. and asserting the need for review. Review or a new investigation would be warranted if the points you bring up are correct. But they are not. And that's our point. Again, you've been refuted on every point you've brought here, yet you still think there's grounds for calling for a new investigation? When each of those grounds you cite are demonstrably incorrect?

You want to make your points stick? Then establish them as valid. You're simply listing them and not even mounting a defense of them. If you cannot defend them, then concede that you've been proven wrong. Either way, discard this crybaby display of argumentation by trying to cover yourself in reasonable doubt and attempting weak appeals to authority, such as your note about the Colorado Democratic Platform plank (something their leader - Hal Bidlack - has likely got some fierce to say about). The anomalies you cite are not anomalies; they're distortions of what truly happened. Which is why you have no legitimate basis for your call for a new investigation. You should not lie your way into such a call. And that is precisely what you are doing here. See above.

Ps. Answer Ryan Mackey's and Beachnut's corrections to your assertions about controllablity at some point, will you? That's supposedly something you should have genuine experience at given your employment history, yet you're avoiding it like the plague in bringing up these easily refutable truther talking points that have been answered years ago. Ryan explicitly mentioned some flights that disprove your assertion, yet you've done next to nothing to address that substantively. It's time for you to start.