Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[GregoryUrich]

There's no disputing that Gregory has distanced himself from other fantasists on the CD myth. I'm asking why he rejects the findings of the investigation that identified the hijackers. His heart is compelling him to swallow a myth that his head can't justify. I wonder about that.

Strawman again Pomeroo. I have never rejected the identification of the hijackers. If you want to understand the issues I feel warrant a new investigation, check out the Open Letter to Richard Gage thread. Mackey asked. I answered.

ETA: I'm so used to your ranting that I missed the biggest STRAWMAN ever. Accusing me of hating my country is DISPICABLE. Given all your strawman attacks, one wonders if you really have anything to substantial to say.

 

[roundhead]

1. I fear, the terrorist are better pilots than you are at being knowledgeable on 9/11 or flying. First point failed.
2. The pilots did not expect to get throats cut; number 2 failed.
3. Anyone can turn off the transponder, the terrorist had the books. failed
4. The largest office building in the world? failed. (btw, the terrorist had training in navigation, they had a VOR tuned in to DCA, it is right next to the Pentagon, they could have found the Pentagon with only 3 miles visibility! You need to study this stuff before making up junk ideas.)
5. Failed again, the dive was messy; you should cheat and look at the evidence. Gee, the G force was ugly, the stick was not steady. But even a kid with no training can hit the Pentagon or the WTC. Failed again.
6. Clipped light posts, going over 700 feet per second, fall away lamppost? Failed again. What does a lamppost do to the wing? Did you know in Italy, a Navy jet cut a cable supporting a ski-lift! The Navy jet made it back! Get some facts before you make up lies.
7. Sorry, the plane was in a descent right into the Pentagon. You should see the area before you make up lies.

The terrorist all had FAA tickets to fly, if you need help, please learn about 9/11 before making failed ideas up out of ignorance. I suspect you are not a pilot.

Is this the best you have?

1.By ANY account, Hani was an extremely poor pilot. Even as recently as several weeks before 9/11. He couldnt even rent a Cessna.
2.According to PUBLISHED reports, Burlingame was herded to the back of the plane, WITHOUT, obviously, his throat cut.


Get YOUR facts straight, before spewing unsupported outright lies.

 

[Dave Rogers]

1.By ANY account, Hani was an extremely poor pilot. Even as recently as several weeks before 9/11. He couldnt even rent a Cessna.

And yet Marcel Bernard, the very instructor who refused to rent him the Cessna also said, "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." (http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html) So even your source for him being a poor pilot thinks he was good enough. Why don't you believe your own sources?

2.According to PUBLISHED reports, Burlingame was herded to the back of the plane, WITHOUT, obviously, his throat cut.

Then you'll have no problem finding a reference to these reports. If you can't (and I suspect you can't, because I suspect they don't exist), maybe you could apologise that you didn't "get your facts straight before spewing unsupported outright lies".

Dave

 

[Newtons Bit]

Strawman again Pomeroo. I have never rejected the identification of the hijackers. If you want to understand the issues I feel warrant a new investigation, check out the Open Letter to Richard Gage thread. Mackey asked. I answered.

ETA: I'm so used to your ranting that I missed the biggest STRAWMAN ever. Accusing me of hating my country is DISPICABLE. Given all your strawman attacks, one wonders if you really have anything to substantial to say.

I thought you were Swedish for some reason...

 

[roundhead]

And yet Marcel Bernard, the very instructor who refused to rent him the Cessna also said, "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." (http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html) So even your source for him being a poor pilot thinks he was good enough. Why don't you believe your own sources?



Then you'll have no problem finding a reference to these reports. If you can't (and I suspect you can't, because I suspect they don't exist), maybe you could apologise that you didn't "get your facts straight before spewing unsupported outright lies".

Dave

Ted Olsen was quoted on CNN as saying he was told by his wife the pilot was herded to the back of the plane..You dispute this.


Despite cherry picking the Bernard quote (which it should be noted, says ONLy what it says, that he could hit a building. It stops short of as to his competence to have performed the necessary maneuvers to actually hit the Pentagon 8-10 feet off the deck after clipping light poles. It only say he could hit a building, and NOTHING more. That could literally mean anything, and likely why Bernard went no further.

It should aslo be noted Bernard didnt even go up in the Cessna with him, those who did, didnt EVEN make that generous a remark.

Another guy in your link said he was "Still amazed to this day he could have flown into the Pentagon.He couldnt fly AT ALL". That quote seems way more telling.

The weight of that link supports my contention he was a poor pilot and hitting the Pentagon would be very unlikely.

You have done nothing but support my case.



Even allowing there is a SMALL chance he might have been able to do it, we still have a number of other factors that lessen even this small chance.The biggest being getting Burlingame off the stick without any highjack code being raised (as we have ZERO evidence that something that MIGHT have allowed that, a pistol placed at his head), was on the plane. Olsen sure doesnt help this one bit.

Then after all that he has to clip the poles, etc, etc.

I would honestly liken his chances to a poor swimmer making it across the English Channel with a weight around his neck in cold water with forbidding current.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ted Olsen was quoted on CNN as saying he was told by his wife the pilot was herded to the back of the plane..You dispute this.

Find the quote and post it, then there's something to dispute. At the moment there's just your personal recollection, which could be completely wrong.

Since you didn't bother responding to the Marcel Bernard quote, can I assume you withdraw the assertion that Hanjour couldn't have hit the Pentagon because Bernard wouldn't rent him the Cessna?

ETA: Hang on a minute, I just spotted a small plot hole in your dispute.

Firstly, I concede the point that Ted Olson made the statement you claim - I just googled it. He doesn't say whether Barbara Olson specifically identified Burlingame, but let's suppose that Barbara Olson's statement can be taken at face value. If so, does that mean that you now believe that "all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers" with knives and cardboard cutters? Or is Ted Olson's statement to be taken at face value when it agrees with your opinions, but discarded out of hand when it doesn't?

You see, you're claiming that there's something suspicious about the fact that the flight crew obeyed the instructions of armed hijackers, and therefore suggest that it never happened that way. However, you're supporting your argument with a quote that indicates that it did happen that way. So either you accept that the crew did what the hijackers told them, for whatever reason, or you reject Barbara Olson's reported account. You can't have it both ways.

Dave

 

[X]

I thought the problem Hani had was with landing the Cessna.

I'm sure it has been mentioned before, but I'm going to repeat it for your reading pleasure, Roundhead:

Flying is easy.
Landing, that is the tough part.
Why? Because the aircraft is flying slow, and it must maintain that slow speed in order to land within the given distance. So the aircraft is approaching stall speed, at low altitude (no room to recover), in a nose-up attitude. It is the hardest part of flying an aircraft, because you can't speed up quickly, and you have very little time to rect to correct errors.
If the plane is airborne and just cruising along, it's fairly easy to fly. Just don't do anything wld with the controls, and anybody should be able to get the aircraft pointed where they want it to be.

So the fact that Hani reportedly had trouble landing a Cessna says nothing about his ability to control a plane in flight.
The fact that Hani had a pilots license meant he had some training in flying, more than enough to fly the plane into a building.

Remember: Flying is easy. Landing is hard. Just because hani had a difficult time landing, does not mean he was a clueless pilot in the air.

 

[RedIbis]

I thought the problem Hani had was with landing the Cessna.

I'm sure it has been mentioned before, but I'm going to repeat it for your reading pleasure, Roundhead:

Flying is easy.
Landing, that is the tough part.
Why? Because the aircraft is flying slow, and it must maintain that slow speed in order to land within the given distance. So the aircraft is approaching stall speed, at low altitude (no room to recover), in a nose-up attitude. It is the hardest part of flying an aircraft, because you can't speed up quickly, and you have very little time to rect to correct errors.
If the plane is airborne and just cruising along, it's fairly easy to fly. Just don't do anything wld with the controls, and anybody should be able to get the aircraft pointed where they want it to be.

So the fact that Hani reportedly had trouble landing a Cessna says nothing about his ability to control a plane in flight.
The fact that Hani had a pilots license meant he had some training in flying, more than enough to fly the plane into a building.

Remember: Flying is easy. Landing is hard. Just because hani had a difficult time landing, does not mean he was a clueless pilot in the air.

This may be true, but I don't think anyone can say what Hanjour pulled off was easy. There's still the matter of the 320-degree turn he had to pull off while descending 7,000 feet.

 

[roundhead]

Find the quote and post it, then there's something to dispute. At the moment there's just your personal recollection, which could be completely wrong.

Since you didn't bother responding to the Marcel Bernard quote, can I assume you withdraw the assertion that Hanjour couldn't have hit the Pentagon because Bernard wouldn't rent him the Cessna?

ETA: Hang on a minute, I just spotted a small plot hole in your dispute.

Firstly, I concede the point that Ted Olson made the statement you claim - I just googled it. He doesn't say whether Barbara Olson specifically identified Burlingame, but let's suppose that Barbara Olson's statement can be taken at face value. If so, does that mean that you now believe that "all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers" with knives and cardboard cutters? Or is Ted Olson's statement to be taken at face value when it agrees with your opinions, but discarded out of hand when it doesn't?

You see, you're claiming that there's something suspicious about the fact that the flight crew obeyed the instructions of armed hijackers, and therefore suggest that it never happened that way. However, you're supporting your argument with a quote that indicates that it did happen that way. So either you accept that the crew did what the hijackers told them, for whatever reason, or you reject Barbara Olson's reported account. You can't have it both ways.

Dave

The government placed great weight, and used the weight of this "boxcutter" quote by Olsen to great propaganda effect.

My intention is to poke enough holes in the official story to be able to call for a new and independant investigation of 9/11. I think the footing is and has been there to support such an effort.

In our above debate, we have two points. A very poor pilot doing extraordinary things. And an experienced war hero giving up the reigns without issuing a warning to the ground, and seemingly unwounded.
Olsen did say"Pilot" so i will take that at face value, because he in fact was the pilot.

I am not a lawyer, my opinion is that the account that is published doesnt pass the common sense self test.

To stray a little, all the highjack pilots were poor , and did remarkable things.

As i think the Govt was to some (unsure how much)involved in the plot, it seems unlikely they would risk having poor pilots at the helm for such important tasks.

The shock and awe at the Towers was in my mind a critical part of bringing national unity behind subsequent events.

Its my opinion that the controls of all 9/11 planes were not in the hands of anybody on those planes (at some point) in those flights. I believe the highjackers were unaware of this.
This would of course, if true, render the exact same outcome, with of course a way greater chance of sucess.

 

[TexasJack]

Then after all that he has to clip the poles, etc, etc.

I would honestly liken his chances to a poor swimmer making it across the English Channel with a weight around his neck in cold water with forbidding current.

This is the third time I have asked this question that you keep avoiding, if AA 77 did not hit the poles, what did? Or are you afraid to give a silly answer?

 

[X]

This may be true, but I don't think anyone can say what Hanjour pulled off was easy. There's still the matter of the 320-degree turn he had to pull off while descending 7,000 feet.

It has been addressed before.
I am not a pilot, so I'm not going to tackle it from that perspective (ther are pilots o this forum who can address that aspect, if they wish).


However:
Let's take a simplified view of the lift provided by a wing.
Let's assume it is evenly distributed (in real life, it's more like a parabola).
With the plaine in level flight, all this lift if directed upwards, keeping the plane at its altitude.
If the plane is banked, the wings become angled relative to the horizontal.
You realize, of course, that the lift generated by a wing acts perpedicular to its surface.
So when the wing is tilted, the lift force is still directed perpendicular to the wing surface. As long as the effective attitude does not change, the total lift force will remain the same, as well.
Except that now we can divide the lift force into components. Vertical and horizontal components.
The vertical component is what is left to keep the plane from descending.
The horizontal components causes the plane to turn.
Since the plane had enough lift to keep it level before banking, what do you think will happen when some of that lift force is now being used to turn the plane?
So you see, descending in a turn isn't difficult. It is a natural consequence of banking the aircraft.

 

[MikeW]

Olsen did say"Pilot" so i will take that at face value, because he in fact was the pilot.

Here's the Ted Olson/ Larry King transcript:

KING: Didn't she ask about the pilot...

T. OLSON: She asked -- she said...

KING: ... was the pilot in the back with her then? T. OLSON: I don't know. But she told me at one point in this conversation, "What shall I tell the pilot? What, what, what, what, what can I tell the pilot to do?"

KING: Implying that he must have been back there with her.

T. OLSON: Either the pilot, or possibly the co-pilot, or a part of the crew. That was the implication, but I didn't really think to ask that specific question.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/25/lkl.00.html

The idea that the pilot was sitting back with Barbara Olson is at best an "implication". It's certainly not the only possible interpretation of that statement, and Olson clearly doesn't place any great weight in the comment.

 

[roundhead]

This is the third time I have asked this question that you keep avoiding, if AA 77 did not hit the poles, what did? Or are you afraid to give a silly answer?

I am not, nor have i ever said it didnt.

Lets say 77 did everything the Govt said it did. In other words 77 hit the Pentagon exactly where we are told it did.

If i am to feel comfortable even a little with that, i would need to reinforce my feeling by taking away variables that would make that story believable.

Those variable would to a great degree be:

1.Not having Hani flying the plane at impact.
2.Having Burlingame be a non factor.

You remove those two variables, the probabality of impact goes up dramatically.

In my mind, the only thing that neatly ties all this together, is remote control. This would also neatly tie up the NYC impacts as well.

We still have the effect of the light poles, but the likelyhood of the planes chances of sucess would be much greater, and in my mind way more believable.

Obviously, if what i say is in fact true, it would seem the known ability of the highjack pilots would be rendered moot. Whoever was in the cockpits wouldnt matter, and the probabilities of sucess would dramatically increase.

This might account for no highjack codes and turned off transponders as well. Additionally, no matter what weapons were on board, it would have no factor in the events at all.

 

[RedIbis]

It has been addressed before.
I am not a pilot, so I'm not going to tackle it from that perspective (ther are pilots o this forum who can address that aspect, if they wish).


[...]
So you see, descending in a turn isn't difficult. It is a natural consequence of banking the aircraft.

I'm not a pilot either. But as I understand it, the 320 degree turn, while possible, is quite difficult, but most difficult would be pulling the plane out of the descent to fly horizontal only a few feet above the ground.

 

[RedIbis]

The government placed great weight, and used the weight of this "boxcutter" quote by Olsen to great propaganda effect.

My intention is to poke enough holes in the official story to be able to call for a new and independant investigation of 9/11. I think the footing is and has been there to support such an effort.

In our above debate, we have two points. A very poor pilot doing extraordinary things. And an experienced war hero giving up the reigns without issuing a warning to the ground, and seemingly unwounded.
Olsen did say"Pilot" so i will take that at face value, because he in fact was the pilot.

I am not a lawyer, my opinion is that the account that is published doesnt pass the common sense self test.

To stray a little, all the highjack pilots were poor , and did remarkable things.

As i think the Govt was to some (unsure how much)involved in the plot, it seems unlikely they would risk having poor pilots at the helm for such important tasks.

The shock and awe at the Towers was in my mind a critical part of bringing national unity behind subsequent events.

Its my opinion that the controls of all 9/11 planes were not in the hands of anybody on those planes (at some point) in those flights. I believe the highjackers were unaware of this.
This would of course, if true, render the exact same outcome, with of course a way greater chance of sucess.

I tremble to think of how much snide mockery and scorn is about to be heaped upon this moderate and logical post.

 

[Reheat]

I'm not a pilot either. But as I understand it, the 320 degree turn, while possible, is quite difficult, but most difficult would be pulling the plane out of the descent to fly horizontal only a few feet above the ground.

The referenced turn was a descending standard rate (approximately) turn that is taught to pilots from day one of their training. It is the normal way of getting from altitude to traffic pattern altitude prior to commencing an approach for landing. The turn to landing is also a descending standard rate turn. Since most aircraft land after flying it's safe to say that a licensed pilot had made a similar type turn perhaps thousands of time in accumulating 600 hours of flying turn.

The Pilot of AA 77 CRASHED. In spite of your ineptitude at understanding this, I'd guess even you could do it the first time you tried!

 

[roundhead]

Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: “Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.” According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.”2

 

[Reheat]

A very poor pilot doing extraordinary things.

Sure, crashing an airplane is very extraordinary! Most pilots don't do that.

 

[MikeW]

Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: “Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.” According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.”2

And yet if we look at Ted Olson's words, as opposed to someone else's summary, he says nothing of the kind.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Lets say 77 did everything the Govt said it did. In other words 77 hit the Pentagon exactly where we are told it did.

If i am to feel comfortable even a little with that, i would need to reinforce my feeling by taking away variables that would make that story believable.

Those variable would to a great degree be:

1.Not having Hani flying the plane at impact.
2.Having Burlingame be a non factor.

Putting aside the fact that the purpose of any investigation is not your personal comfort, let's take a look at these. (1), as an issue, is already dead and buried. There is ample evidence that Hanjour was capable of doing what the pilot of flight 77 did, right down to the testimony of the very man you quote as evidence that he didn't. If you refuse to acknowledge that, there's little point debating the issue.

(2) is more interesting. A major aim of the hijackers, of course, would be to make the pilot a non-factor, and they must have planned for this. Tell me what's wrong with the following scenario:

Four hijackers get up, pull out knives, and take two of the flight crew hostage. Holding a knife to the throat of one (preferably female), they tell the other to get the cockpit door open. When he or she does so, either alone or by asking the crew on the other side of the door, they enter the cockpit, holding knives to the throats of the two stewards, and say, "Do exactly what we tell you and nobody will get hurt." Burlingame, not expecting a suicide attack, co-operates, because that's what he's trained to do. As soon as the crew and passengers are in the back of the plane, Hanjour, the small and slight fifth hijacker, gets up and takes the controls.

What's the problem with all that?

Dave