Why fake the SoC path?

I don't find the contention reasonable. The 767 was better than 3x heavier than the Gulfstream so what might take off the wing of the Gulfstream is not necessarily sufficient to do that to a 767. There so I disagree with you on that issue.

As far as Hanjour is concerned, as I recall the pilot who checked him out (for renting the Cessna) said his flight skills were poor but didn't doubt that he could have flown the 767 into the Pentagon.

Since I don't find the inference that the 767 should have lost a wing reasonable, it is moot whether Hanjour had the skill to fly or control the 767 in that configuration. I would note that if the [whole] wing was completely sheared off (as a facial reading of your post would imply) that is a non-survivable situation (IMO) regardless of the skill of the pilot. Even if the Gulfstream had been at altitude, it would remain a non-survivable situation.
 
This has probably been discussed many times before but I don't remember seeing it.

The flight path Hani Hanjour took AA77 into the Pentagon presented a nice option of continuing on, for whatever reason, and targeting the Capitol building instead.

USC.jpg
 
I don't know if it just bores me or what but I can never understand what this whole NOC crap is all about.

And I read almost anything about 9/11.
 
roundhead said:
Then there is that issue of the aluminum wings passing through a reinforced wall, and no sign of them being seen outside, as though the wall was paper .


A wing hits a dinky little ole light pole and shears off, but can pass through a reinforced wall just fine
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/nov/23/nation/na-plane23
LA Times:

Authorities said the Gulfstream III was 1 1/2 miles from the runway when it hit a light pole on Beltway 8, a toll road that encircles the outskirts of the city. Part of the jet’s wing was sheared off by the impact; the pole was bent in half.




Uh, OK, i want some of what you are smoking, that stuff must be mighty skunky, and be 200 bucks a quarter or more.
Click to expand...
You are bringing this up YET AGAIN?
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
I don't know if it just bores me or what but I can never understand what this whole NOC crap is all about.

And I read almost anything about 9/11.
Click to expand...

Well you see, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis and a few others travelled to Washington DC sometime in 2006 and did a few interviews with some people about what they saw on 9/11. Some of the people they interviewed said they saw the plane from a gas station (CITGO) and that it flew past to the North on its way to the wall of the Pentagon (they all say they saw it hit the Pentagon and explode).

Craig and Aldo took these recollections and try to use them to prove that Flt 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

You are right that it is crap and I am a bit ashamed that I know so much about it. But hey, what am I gonna do? Start collecting stamps?
 
twinstead said:
I'm curious as to what you think about the Edinburgh paper.
Click to expand...

Well I wasn't really asking you and I don't mean to derail but the Edinburgh paper?

What about it?

From what I remember do they even concur with NIST on their theory of collapse initiation?

Do you? Is it not all still disputed even among the debunkers own cited experts?
 
HI,
You have a quote as your sig but it is not attributed to anyone.
Who is that quote from?
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Well I wasn't really asking you and I don't mean to derail but the Edinburgh paper?

What about it?

From what I remember do they even concur with NIST on their theory of collapse initiation?

Do you? Is it not all still disputed even among the debunkers own cited experts?
Click to expand...

Sorry to make you derail. My fault.

There are a few disagreements on the exact nature of the collapse initiation. Some like Quintere think is was MORE likely to collapse because the NIST was too conservative in the amount of fire proofing removed. These kinds of things are to be expected, and are a part of science. What appears to be glaringly missing in all these 'desputes' among the experts is any mention of anything other than the plane impacts and fires brining the buildings down.

I find that interesting, that's all.
 
Bobert said:
HI,
You have a quote as your sig but it is not attributed to anyone.
Who is that quote from?
Click to expand...

IIRC, that was OBL's first response to the attacks while still trying to protect his hosts the Taliban.
 
twinstead said:
Sorry to make you derail. My fault.

There are a few disagreements on the exact nature of the collapse initiation. Some like Quintere think is was MORE likely to collapse because the NIST was too conservative in the amount of fire proofing removed. These kinds of things are to be expected, and are a part of science. What appears to be glaringly missing in all these 'desputes' among the experts is any mention of anything other than the plane impacts and fires brining the buildings down.

I find that interesting, that's all.
Click to expand...

Again I apologize if I'm derailing.

I might be wrong because I don't really remember but didn't the Edinburgh paper believe that any kind of substantial fire could have caused the collapse of the towers even without the jet fuel and the plane impacts? I'll have to go back and look.

In any case all I'm saying is it's still debated and not conclusive.
 
Why dont you at least have balls to attach his name to your quote?
You should wear your quote from OBL with pride.
Truthers are the new neo nazi's.
They apologized for hitler and you for OBL.
You should be so proud.
Your subhandle should read, "terrorist apologist".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom