Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[roundhead]

The guy flying this plane was a professional pilot and was at higher altitude when he struck ONE pole than Hani was.

Even at that, he lost the plane.


Hani hit 5, and still kept his engines parallel to the ground and about 8-10 feet above it.

Doesnt seem AT ALL plausible to me. And i doubt it does to very many people.



So we have a pro pilot in a good sized jet who clips a pole with a little room to correct, and he cant.


We have a guy that clips 5 with way less room to work, has NEVER flown the plane he is in, and he steams in at ground level with no issues

Got cha...sounds super believable to me

 

[R.Mackey]

The guy flying this plane was a professional pilot and was at higher altitude when he struck ONE pole than Hani was.

You really need to start paying attention. The NTSB report I linked describes the cause of the crash.

The reason he hit the pole "at a higher altitude" was because it was a taller pole. The cause of the crash had absolutely nothing to do with the pole. It was a failure to use ILS properly. In other words, the aircraft was accidentally steered into the ground. The pole was merely the first thing that it hit.

Further discussion is off-topic. Your question has been answered.

 

[Myriad]

AP) A private jet that was enroute to Houston to pick up former President Bush clipped a light pole and crashed Monday as it approached Hobby Airport in thick fog, killing all three people aboard.

The Gulfstream G-1159A jet, coming into Houston, went down about 6:15 a.m. in a wooded area just over three miles south of the airport runway. The former president had been scheduled to travel to Ecuador for a conference.

"I was deeply saddened to learn of the plane crash this morning," said the former president, in a statement released by his spokesman, Tom Frechette. "I'd flown with this group before and know them well. I join in sending heartfelt condolences to each and every member of their families."

"It's very sad," said Frechette, who had planned to accompany Mr. Bush on the trip to Ecuador, along with a Secret Service agent.

The National Transportation Safety Board said the "black box" flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder have been recovered, and appear to be in good enough shape to read the data.

.

Authorities say the jet, on its way from Love Field in Dallas, was about three and a quarter miles south of the runway when it clipped the light pole, losing part of a wing.

Rosenker said that the light pole was 120 feet high and that the plane, at that point, should have been at an altitude of 1,000 feet.

Debris from the crash is scattered over an area of over 100 yards.

The crash site is a field near the Beltway 8 tollway. No one on the ground was injured, but one car was hit with debris while another was hit with jet fuel.

Roger Smith, a spokesman for the Houston Airport System, said the pilot didn't indicate any problem, and the landing was routine until communications abruptly stopped. Dense fog blanketed most of the area.

Robert Randall, operations manager with the plane's owner, Jet Place Inc. of Tulsa, Okla., said it had two male pilots and a female flight attendant aboard.

Ah, thanks for the addtional information. Gulfstream, not Beachcraft, which explains why I wasn't able to find the incident in the NTSB database at first.

Here's a picture of the crash site: http://aviation-safety.net/photos/displayphoto.php?id=20041122-0&vnr=1&kind=C

It sure doesn't look like the plane came straight down, unless someone put a light pole in the middle of a field. It looks like the plane continued for several hundred feet at about a 45 degree angle from the highway (where the light pole undoubtedly was, there are others still standing in the picture) before hitting the ground. If there had been a wall there, just shy of the impact point, do you suppose the plane could have flown into it?

All in all, this example doesn't support your assertion that the light pole impacts made Flight 77's flight path impossible.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[roundhead]

Knocking part of the wing off couldnt have done much for the air worthiness of the plane. Or the control of it


Lets say that plane was flying at 10,000 feet and s hit the same pole, and the pole offered the same resistance as it did in this incident.

In other words its suspended at 10,00 feet and sunk into imaginary concrete like it was on the ground.

What do you suppose the wing damage would have done to the prospects of the pilot landing the plane??

I await this answer with interest.


I am aware the pilot SHOULDNT have hit the pole.

Lets say it was in his way at 10k feet and did the exact same damage.



Btw..you and Hani think much alike, he chose a route into the Pentagon which clipped the poles. Most any other way in would have avoided them, or other obstacles.

 

[R.Mackey]

Since this line of questioning is totally speculative and irrelevant, I request you take this to another thread. Thanks.

 

[roundhead]

Ah, thanks for the addtional information. Gulfstream, not Beachcraft, which explains why I wasn't able to find the incident in the NTSB database at first.

Here's a picture of the crash site: http://aviation-safety.net/photos/displayphoto.php?id=20041122-0&vnr=1&kind=C

It sure doesn't look like the plane came straight down, unless someone put a light pole in the middle of a field. It looks like the plane continued for several hundred feet at about a 45 degree angle from the highway (where the light pole undoubtedly was, there are others still standing in the picture) before hitting the ground. If there had been a wall there, just shy of the impact point, do you suppose the plane could have flown into it?

All in all, this example doesn't support your assertion that the light pole impacts made Flight 77's flight path impossible.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Several hundred feet? I didnt say it dropped like a stone, but the plane had SOME forward momentum that would have obviously allowed it to go some distance further before crashing.

And i agree, the lightpoles dont make it impossible, but they do make it extremely unlikely, in fact implausible.

The poles are just flat going to impart SOME degree of negative airworthiness.

How much, i dont confess to know. But any of you guys who think my example isnt comparative, are off base.

Hani had to go more than 200 feet after clipping 5, and not get out of wack at all accomplishing that feat,all while holding a huge speeding jetliner a few, few feet off the ground.

When all these events add up, it smells

1.Poor, inept pilot.
2.Took reigns away from stud hero
3.Turned transponder off
4.Found the Pentagon
5.Did a skillfull dive to get "lined up"
6.Clipped 5 light poles
7.Maintained a level few feet off the ground flight, into the wall.


All in all, our buddy ole Hani had a full day on 9/11.


And there are people who actually believe this stuff................

 

[e^n]

Hani had to go more than 200 feet after clipping 5, and not get out of wack at all accomplishing that feat,all while holding a huge speeding jetliner a few, few feet off the ground.

AA77 was moving at over 700 feet per second, are you really arguing over the trajectory deviation in a very large very heavy and very quickly moving aircraft within 1/3rd of a second?

 

[pomeroo]

ALL??

That doesnt sound like a statement anyone over 7 years old would make to somebody they dont know.

I don't want to get into another round of sock-puppet accusations, but some breathtakingly stupid conspiracy liars have been bounced from this forum of late. I have in mind people like "LastChild," who was reputedly the sock-puppet of another moron who posted as "Zensmack." It is interesting that whenever a vacuous, fact-free imbecile vanishes, one can almost predict the exact interval that will elapse before a clone will take his place.

 

[pomeroo]

Several hundred feet? I didnt say it dropped like a stone, but the plane had SOME forward momentum that would have obviously allowed it to go some distance further before crashing.

And i agree, the lightpoles dont make it impossible, but they do make it extremely unlikely, in fact implausible.

The poles are just flat going to impart SOME degree of negative airworthiness.

How much, i dont confess to know. But any of you guys who think my example isnt comparative, are off base.

Hani had to go more than 200 feet after clipping 5, and not get out of wack at all accomplishing that feat,all while holding a huge speeding jetliner a few, few feet off the ground.

When all these events add up, it smells

1.Poor, inept pilot.
2.Took reigns away from stud hero
3.Turned transponder off
4.Found the Pentagon
5.Did a skillfull dive to get "lined up"
6.Clipped 5 light poles
7.Maintained a level few feet off the ground flight, into the wall.


All in all, our buddy ole Hani had a full day on 9/11.


And there are people who actually believe this stuff................

I've posted the link to Giuilo Bernacchia's essay several dozen times. Who could require seeing it again? Hmmm? It couldn't be "LastChild" as he's far too stupid to read it, but here we go again:

http://911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

 

[pomeroo]

Knocking part of the wing off couldnt have done much for the air worthiness of the plane. Or the control of it


Lets say that plane was flying at 10,000 feet and s hit the same pole, and the pole offered the same resistance as it did in this incident.

In other words its suspended at 10,00 feet and sunk into imaginary concrete like it was on the ground.

What do you suppose the wing damage would have done to the prospects of the pilot landing the plane??

I await this answer with interest.


I am aware the pilot SHOULDNT have hit the pole.

Lets say it was in his way at 10k feet and did the exact same damage.



Btw..you and Hani think much alike, he chose a route into the Pentagon which clipped the poles. Most any other way in would have avoided them, or other obstacles.

An ignorant fool trying to argue aerodynamics with a NASA engineer--now, who could be dumb enough to...? This is a mystery. Who could "rockhead," I mean, "roundhead" be?

 

[roundhead]

Still nobody has challenged the 7 steps to impact i mentioned above.

Taken together, they flat make the official vomitus unbelievable. And all those steps DID have to happen.

It truly, and i mean this in a nice way, gives me great pleasure to be among slurpers of the Cheney popsicle, this is definately a bastion.
Kinda the same feeling i had as a kid sticking up for an older kid picking on my younger brother. Knowing i am in the right, but having to deal with the wrong.

 

[applecorped]

Still nobody has challenged the 7 steps to impact i mentioned above.

Taken together, they flat make the official vomitus unbelievable. And all those steps DID have to happen.

It truly, and i mean this in a nice way, gives me great pleasure to be among slurpers of the Cheney popsicle, this is definately a bastion.
Kinda the same feeling i had as a kid sticking up for an older kid picking on my younger brother. Knowing i am in the right, but having to deal with the wrong.

 

[R.Mackey]

The last five posts in a row contain no relevant content, and nothing approaching "Respect."

I remind you all again to take these issues elsewhere. They are off-topic, and I am not interested.

 

[roundhead]

You know why nobody will do anything other than hurl mud and not breakdown the 7 things that happened along Hani's way i detailed above.

Because they cant.


All that stuff happening has to be EXTREMELY unlikely, to be accomodating about it. Throw in something besides Hani at the wheel believability increases dramatically.


You guys around here are true carp, sucking doughballs off the river bottom.


Gotta go for the weekend........


I cant wait to see somebody break down and assail my seven steps of Hani

 

[e^n]

Still nobody has challenged the 7 steps to impact i mentioned above.

Ok, here we go:

• 1. Poor, inept licensed pilot.
• 2. Took over cockpit with violence and weaponry in a group larger than those who would oppose them. (We can also discuss how all hijacks had progressed before 911)
• 3. Turned the transponder off (it is not difficult, he was a licensed pilot remember)
• 4. Found the Pentagon (can you find it in a car? Yes? Then it can be found just as easily from the air)
• 5. Did a dive described by professional pilots as 'reckless'
• 6. Clipped 5 light poles
• 7. Impacted the Pentagon less than 1/2 second later

None of that is impossible. How does this disprove the 'official story' again?

Knowing i am in the right, but having to deal with the wrong.

Your confidence is what stops you discovering the truth.

You guys around here are true carp, sucking doughballs off the river bottom.
Gotta go for the weekend........
I cant wait to see somebody break down and assail my seven steps of Hani

Yeah, calling your opponents names typically would indicate you are not evenly biased. You're pretty hilarious for someone complaining that nobody will break down his points a very short time after you posted them. I await your response.

 

[gumboot]

Is roundhead suggesting that the impact of the light poles would have caused AA77 to crash? Because unless I'm very much mistaken that's precisely what AA77 did within a second of hitting the light poles.

Do we have yet another person claiming that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have been capable of crashing an airliner?

Phenomenal.

 

[gumboot]

1.Poor, inept pilot.

With an FAA-certified commercial pilot's license.

2.Took reigns away from stud hero

On account of poor inept pilot's terrorist friends having cut stud hero's throat while he was strapped into his cramped cockpit chair.

3.Turned transponder off

Probably using the off switch.

4.Found the Pentagon

Using the highly sophisticated combination of plugging in Regan's VORTAC beacon, followed by eyes of two eyes.

5.Did a skillfull dive to get "lined up"

Fouled up the approach and had to go around again to bleed altitude. Slopping flying once he was at manual control too, by the way.

6.Clipped 5 light poles

He's lucky he didn't screw up more seriously and hit the underpass bridge, or worse yet the ground.

7.Maintained a level few feet off the ground flight, into the wall.

AA77 didn't approach the Pentagon at level altitude, it was in a descent.

All in all, our buddy ole Hani had a full day on 9/11.

Hani Hanjour certainly wasn't my buddy. But you obviously know nothing about Islamic Terrorists, and therefore cannot even begin to imagine how full Hanjour's day was on 9/11.

 

[TjW]

The ATC'S in that quote certainly didnt consider it less than standard. They thought it exactly the opposite.

It doesn't really matter what they thought. Do you know what a standard rate turn is?

Do you know what limits apply to aircraft below 10,000 feet? Do you know why some military aircraft aren't held to those limits?

Assuming you can do a quick Google and find out, can you think of a reason why a controller seeing a flight not obeying the rules might be reminded of a military flight?

 

[Ragnarok]

I have a question. If it was theoretically possible for towers 1 and 2 to be brought down by the impact of planes, and their resulting fires, what would be the least amount of explosives that would be needed to ensure that the buildings came down, and where would they be best placed, to achieve maximum effect?

If OT'ers can convince me that the amount would be so unfeasibly large as to be of any practical application, I'll swing my leg a little further over onto your side of the fence.

 

[Myriad]

I have a question. If it was theoretically possible for towers 1 and 2 to be brought down by the impact of planes, and their resulting fires, what would be the least amount of explosives that would be needed to ensure that the buildings came down, and where would they be best placed, to achieve maximum effect?

If OT'ers can convince me that the amount would be so unfeasibly large as to be of any practical application, I'll swing my leg a little further over onto your side of the fence.

If the plane impacts of 9/11 occur, then no explosives are needed to ensure that the buildings come down.

If the plane impacts do not occur, then no amount of explosives could make it appear that the towers collapsed from plane impacts and fire.

You could probably bring the towers down with half a ton or so of explosives per tower. (I'm not going to tell you where to put the explosives to bring down a building, but I'm sure the Office of Homeland Security would tell you if you ask them nicely.) But the explosions would be obvious.

I should also let you know that if the New York City council's office has not received at least 30,000 valid signatures supporting the 9/11 Investigation Ballot Initiative in four day's time, I will cease to care where you or anyone else swing their leg on the inside job 9/11 conspiracy issue.

Welcome to the forum!

Respectfully,
Myriad