The best site for 911 research

[beachnut]

I am not aware of a truther claim of impossible speed, I made no such claim. I said unusual speed, speed at which that would be uttermost on the person's mind who made a phone call.

Moreover speed that would be enormously difficult to coordinate with a precise perpendicular strike on the WTC.

Easy for a computer programmed flight path, however.

False, you are not a pilot and have no clue the flying on 911 was not hard. You are wrong and have no knowledge, no skill, and no clue on flying or 911.

There is no way to program any of the planes on 911 to hit a building. Where do you come up with these nut case ideas?

You have no clue what is normal, you have no clue what the decent rates were, you have no clue what Vd of a 767 is, or any clue how fast a 767 can go at sea level. You have nothing, you know nothing, and have failed after 8 years and have no substance to offer on 911.

Bring up the numbers backed with sources, hard data, and explain what it has to do with 911 and your failed delusion.

 

[fess]

The WTC towers were anything but narrow.

Have you ever seen the WTC? They were the most visible landmarks for miles. All the pilots had to do was line up the airplanes, keep aiming at the towers.

Thanks Bell, as I have said before, these pilots (and yes, they were pilots) were not interested in flying the air craft within the company parameters that make PAX happy about flying with this airline. And no, they weren’t interested in flying the aircraft within its normal operating parameters; in fact, they weren’t interested in flying at all… they were interested in AIMING the aircraft.

 

[fess]

I think we have established "unprecendented" was the wrong word. However extreme and highly unusual is not.

The question is would such a rate of descent have been very very apparent to the passengers on their phones?

My opinion is yes. But the record seems to suggest otherwise....

I think, if I read correctly, Peter Hanson, during the conversation with his father, said; “I think we are going down”.

 

[A W Smith]

I think we have established "unprecendented" was the wrong word. However extreme and highly unusual is not.

The question is would such a rate of descent have been very very apparent to the passengers on their phones?

To what Degree?
http://www.1728.com/gradient.htm

 

[carlitos]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think we have established "unprecendented" was the wrong word. However extreme and highly unusual is not.

The word conspicuous by its absence is "difficult". We know that the hijackers were intending to undertake the extreme and highly unusual act of crashing the airliners into buildings. The fact that they chose, in doing so, to fly them in ways that were dangerous and caused extreme discomfort to the passengers should hardly be surprising.

It's the Hani Hanjour turn all over again. Commercial pilots don't fly their planes like that, not because it's particularly difficult, but because its dangerous and stupid. The fact that a bad pilot flew a plane dangerously and stupidly doesn't sound quite so suspicious, though, does it? So be careful not to mention that.

Dave