Strange But (Un)True?

[Quaalude]

Hani Hanjour, the pilot of Flight 77, was so incompetent he could not
fly a Cessna in August, but in September managed to fly a 767 at
excessive speed into a spiraling, 270-degree descent and a level impact
of the first floor of the Pentagon, on the only side that was virtually
empty and had been hardened to withstand a terrorist attack, merely
demonstrates that people can do almost anything once they set their
minds to it.

(Un)True?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Quaalude > wrote:

> Hani Hanjour, the pilot of Flight 77, was so incompetent he could not
> fly a Cessna in August, but in September managed to fly a 767 at
> excessive speed into a spiraling, 270-degree descent and a level impact
> of the first floor of the Pentagon, on the only side that was virtually
> empty and had been hardened to withstand a terrorist attack, merely
> demonstrates that people can do almost anything once they set their
> minds to it.
>
> (Un)True?

Even you, "Quaalude," could fly that pattern. After all, you don't have
to take off or land, or even reconfigure the aircraft. No real skill
required!

[Tom[_15_]]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:38:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> Hanjour

The instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had
hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all."

<http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us/a-trainee-noted-for-incompetence.html>

And yet, Orval Fairbairn asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a
stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation
test pilot.

Perhaps you need to remove you head from Mary's drums, Orval, the
banging has advanced your senility.

[Quaalude]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:47:05 -0400, Tom wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:38:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>> Hanjour
>
> The instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had
> hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all."
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us/a-trainee-noted-for-incompetence.html>
>
> And yet, Orval Fairbairn asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a
> stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation
> test pilot.
>
> Perhaps you need to remove you head from Mary's drums, Orval, the
> banging has advanced your senility.

Pilots for Truth:

"Our conclusion is, the maneuver looks possible, for guys like us. But
for Hani? Unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something
else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757
hitting the pentagon to silence all these "Conspiracy theorists". They
want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate
camera? C'mon..."

[Tom[_15_]]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:58:36 -0400, Quaalude wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:47:05 -0400, Tom wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:38:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>> Hanjour
>>
>> The instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had
>> hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all."
>>
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us/a-trainee-noted-for-incompetence.html>
>>
>> And yet, Orval Fairbairn asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a
>> stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation
>> test pilot.
>>
>> Perhaps you need to remove you head from Mary's drums, Orval, the
>> banging has advanced your senility.
>
> Pilots for Truth:
>
> "Our conclusion is, the maneuver looks possible, for guys like us. But
> for Hani? Unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something
> else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757
> hitting the pentagon to silence all these "Conspiracy theorists". They
> want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate
> camera? C'mon..."

The reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with
the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow
the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half
the distance of its wingspan ¡X until speed is drastically reduced,
which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.

Flight 77 "hit the Pentagon" at cruising speed.

So speaketh an aeronautical engineer.

[[email protected]]

Quaalude > wrote:

> Pilots for Truth:
>
> "Our conclusion is, the maneuver looks possible, for guys like us. But
> for Hani? Unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something
> else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757
> hitting the pentagon to silence all these "Conspiracy theorists". They
> want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate
> camera? C'mon..."

Babbling nut case.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >, Tom >
wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:38:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > Hanjour
>
> The instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had
> hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all."
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us/a-trainee-noted-for-incompetence.html>
>
> And yet, Orval Fairbairn asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a
> stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation
> test pilot.

First of all, if that maneuver would "press the limits of even the most
experienced test pilot," I would have to question both his experience
and expertise. It didn't take much ability to perform a diving 270
degree kamikaze turn. The Kamikazes in WW-II did it all the time, and
with only rudimentary training.

Only a fool would arge otherwise.


>
> Perhaps you need to remove you head from Mary's drums, Orval, the
> banging has advanced your senility.

Obviously, neither "Tom" nor "Quaalude" has ever operated the controls
of a plane, or they would not have posted such utter nonsense.

[Tom[_15_]]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:43:56 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:

> In article >, Tom > wrote:
>>On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:58:36 -0400, Quaalude wrote:
>>
>>The reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with
>>the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow
>>the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half
>>the distance of its wingspan ¡X until speed is drastically reduced,
>>which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
>
> You're saying there's a magic cushion that prevents aircraft at cruise
> from approaching close to the ground?

No and you damn well know that is a complete distortion of the truth.

<snipped remaining lies>

[Tom[_15_]]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:36:54 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >, Tom >
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:38:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>> Hanjour
>>
>> The instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had
>> hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all."
>>
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us/a-trainee-noted-for-incompetence.html>
>>
>> And yet, Orval Fairbairn asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a
>> stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation
>> test pilot.
>
> First of all, if that maneuver would "press the limits of even the most
> experienced test pilot," I would have to question both his experience
> and expertise.

This is out of your league, Fairbairn, plain and simple. You're a proven
quagmirist know-it-nothing with an overblown ego and a peanut head for a
brain.

"No-one cares what you "believe", just as your beliefs about weather and
climate have been clearly shown to be ridiculous - negating any
comment you wish to make on other areas of climate science."

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/v_Z7jYtLlsI>

"If I can be bothered to show you the facts, the least you can do is to
bother to reply, before you try to spread more crap."

Your "expertise" extends to <never> building an LSA with a measly 80hp
Jabiru P.O.S.

Stick your head back inside Mary's drums where comfort awaits you.

[Tom[_15_]]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:40:19 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:

> In article >, Tom > wrote:
>>On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:38:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>And yet, Orval Fairbairn asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a
>>stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation
>>test pilot.
>
> Given a few days practice in Microsoft Flight Simulator, *anybody*
> could do it.

Brother, you got some catching it up to do.

Not only is it implausible, it's impossible.

Start here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=57...58033&hl=en

And end here:

http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o (if vimeo gives you problems)

Supplemental FAQ:

http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-ca..._plane_hit.html

You have to imagine them coming out of that turn, flying tree top level,
being able to see or know where the Pentagon is miles away at the
bottom of a ridge, treeline, highways, and a high-rise skyline- and
then be able to miss the VDOT tower or fly above it, then drop down
threading itself through 5 light poles, while missing the VDOT camera
mast next to pole 1 and then fly low and level just a few feet above
the lawn, skimming on it's belly into the first floor. That on it's
face is implausible, the above evidence based presentations show it is
IMPOSSIBLE.

Hani wasn't piloting that plane. <eom>

[Tom[_15_]]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:27:11 -0000, wrote:

> Babbling nut case.

Yes you are; Hey Pin<nino>head if we are really lucky we'll get the
chance to observe you make a complete ass out of yourself in another go
around with Markie Your Favourite Retard.

*LOLOLOLOL*

[[email protected]]

Tom > wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:27:11 -0000, wrote:
>
>> Babbling nut case.
>
> Yes you are; Hey Pin<nino>head if we are really lucky we'll get the
> chance to observe you make a complete ass out of yourself in another go
> around with Markie Your Favourite Retard.
>
> *LOLOLOLOL*

Babbling nut case.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george152]

On 4/10/2011 3:56 a.m., Quaalude wrote:
> Hani Hanjour, the pilot of Flight 77, was so incompetent he could not
> fly a Cessna in August, but in September managed to fly a 767 at
> excessive speed into a spiraling, 270-degree descent and a level impact
> of the first floor of the Pentagon, on the only side that was virtually
> empty and had been hardened to withstand a terrorist attack, merely
> demonstrates that people can do almost anything once they set their
> minds to it.
>
> (Un)True?

He was a rated Commercial Pilot...
That means he had well over 300 hours PIC.

[Alieweenok]

W ka¿dym domu najwa¿niejsz¹ rolê pe³ni oœwietlenie. To ono pozwala przyrz¹dziæ przestrzeñ idealn¹ do relaksu, zabawy, spotkañ z przyjació³mi. Trafnie dobrane oœwietlenie nada wnêtrzom nastrojowego klimatu, natomiast dodatkowo optycznie je powiêkszy. W naszym sklepie znajdziecie rozmaite lampy i dodatki oœwietleniowe. Nasze produkty skierowane s¹ do osób, które oczekuj¹ zaskakuj¹cego efektu œwiat³a. W³asny wybór obejmuje równie¿ oœwietlenie do du¿ego pokoju, pokoju dzieciêcego, kiedy zaœ a¿ do ³azienki. Wprost przeciwnie przy nas znajdziecie lampy pod³ogowe, œcienne, sufitowe zaœ sto³owe. Wszystkie wyró¿niaj¹ siê wysok¹ jakoœci¹ wykonania, nietuzinkowym stylem a oryginalnymi formami. Z powodu temu doskonale komponuj¹ siê spoœród wnêtrzami urz¹dzonymi w ró¿nych stylach. Oferujemy lampy (http://www.piekne-zyrandole.pl) tradycyjne tudzie¿ nader nowoczesne, klasyczne oraz sowicie zdobione, w szerokiej gamie kolorystycznej. W zale¿noœci odk¹d oczekiwañ tudzie¿ potrzeb, mo¿ecie selekcjonowaæ modele daj¹ce ciep³e zaœ rozproszone œwiat³o, lub takie, które zapewniaj¹ dobre oœwietlenie ogólne b¹dŸ punktowe. Mo¿ecie siêgn¹æ po lampy wykonane spoœród papieru czerpanego, glin, ze stali b¹dŸ szk³a. Dostarczamy równie¿ niezbêdne dodatki oœwietleniowe. Dajemy wam ogrom mo¿liwoœci na oryginalne dekorowanie przestrzeni, w których funkcjonujecie na co doba.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >, Tom >
wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:36:54 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > In article >, Tom >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:38:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hanjour
> >>
> >> The instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had
> >> hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all."
> >>
> >> <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us/a-trainee-noted-for-incompetence.html
> >> >
> >>
> >> And yet, Orval Fairbairn asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a
> >> stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation
> >> test pilot.
> >
> > First of all, if that maneuver would "press the limits of even the most
> > experienced test pilot," I would have to question both his experience
> > and expertise.
>
> This is out of your league, Fairbairn, plain and simple. You're a proven
> quagmirist know-it-nothing with an overblown ego and a peanut head for a
> brain.
>
> "No-one cares what you "believe", just as your beliefs about weather and
> climate have been clearly shown to be ridiculous - negating any
> comment you wish to make on other areas of climate science."
>
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/v_Z7jYtLlsI>
>
> "If I can be bothered to show you the facts, the least you can do is to
> bother to reply, before you try to spread more crap."
>
> Your "expertise" extends to <never> building an LSA with a measly 80hp
> Jabiru P.O.S.
>
> Stick your head back inside Mary's drums where comfort awaits you.

OK, Sonny. You claim to be an "aeronautical engineer." I became one
probably before you were out of diapers and have been involved with
airplane, missiles and space systems for the last 50 years.

You must have flunked basic aerodynamics and certainly pilot training.

No, I haven't built an LSA, but have restored (and still flying a real
postwar classic that i have been flying for the last 40 years. plus, I
got my private in 1960 and have been flying ever since.

The kookbabble that you spew has zero basis in reality.

BTW -- my experience with data processing in the missile field tells me
that the global warmists are nothing but a bunch of charlatans who
misuse advanced data processing techniques.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >, Tom >
wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:40:19 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:
>
> > In article >, Tom > wrote:
> >>On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:38:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >>
> >>And yet, Orval Fairbairn asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a
> >>stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation
> >>test pilot.
> >
> > Given a few days practice in Microsoft Flight Simulator, *anybody*
> > could do it.
>
> Brother, you got some catching it up to do.
>
> Not only is it implausible, it's impossible.
>
> Start here:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=57...58033&hl=en
>
> And end here:
>
> http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o (if vimeo gives you problems)
>
> Supplemental FAQ:
>
> http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-ca..._plane_hit.html
>
> You have to imagine them coming out of that turn, flying tree top level,
> being able to see or know where the Pentagon is miles away at the
> bottom of a ridge, treeline, highways, and a high-rise skyline- and
> then be able to miss the VDOT tower or fly above it, then drop down
> threading itself through 5 light poles, while missing the VDOT camera
> mast next to pole 1 and then fly low and level just a few feet above
> the lawn, skimming on it's belly into the first floor. That on it's
> face is implausible, the above evidence based presentations show it is
> IMPOSSIBLE.
>
> Hani wasn't piloting that plane. <eom>

The Pentagon is a pretty big (and recognizable) place -- especially on a
severe clear day from an aircraft. TRIVIAL TASK.

[Morgans[_2_]]

Responding to nut jobs in _ANY_ way give the nut what he wants.

It is the reason that this group is all but dead and gone, from the last nut
in here.

Please, everyone, let them babble. Most of us know the difference, and
those that do not won't be influenced by reason or facts.

-- Jim in NC

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> Babbling nut case.

Could be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posting to r.a.p.
:-)

[Tom[_15_]]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:02:53 -0000, wrote:

> Babbling nut case.

Yes you are; Hey Pin<nino>head if we are really lucky we'll get the
chance to observe you make a complete ass out of yourself in another go
around with Markie Your Favourite Retard.

ITM, I will allow you to show your ass responding to me.

*LOLOLOLOL*

[Jim Logajan]

Tom > wrote:
> *LOLOLOLOL*

No no no - now THIS is hilarious:

http://www.theonion.com/video/911-conspiracy-theories-ridiculous-al-qaeda-says,14222/

[Bullitt Silverlight]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:29:25 -0400, Morgans wrote:

> Responding to nut jobs in _ANY_ way give the nut what he wants.
>
> It is the reason that this group is all but dead and gone, from the last nut
> in here.
>
> Please, everyone, let them babble. Most of us know the difference, and
> those that do not won't be influenced by reason or facts.

> Especialy you Pinnino, quit being a stupid ego driven MF assklown.

> What was I thinking?
>
> -- Jim in NC

You weren't.

[Tom[_15_]]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:06:24 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >, Tom >
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:36:54 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>> In article >, Tom >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:38:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hanjour
>>>>
>>>> The instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had
>>>> hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all."
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us/a-trainee-noted-for-incompetence.html
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> And yet, Orval Fairbairn asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a
>>>> stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation
>>>> test pilot.
>>>
>>> First of all, if that maneuver would "press the limits of even the most
>>> experienced test pilot," I would have to question both his experience
>>> and expertise.
>>
>> This is out of your league, Fairbairn, plain and simple. You're a proven
>> quagmirist know-it-nothing with an overblown ego and a peanut head for a
>> brain.
>>
>> "No-one cares what you "believe", just as your beliefs about weather and
>> climate have been clearly shown to be ridiculous - negating any
>> comment you wish to make on other areas of climate science."
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/v_Z7jYtLlsI>
>>
>> "If I can be bothered to show you the facts, the least you can do is to
>> bother to reply, before you try to spread more crap."
>>
>> Your "expertise" extends to <never> building an LSA with a measly 80hp
>> Jabiru P.O.S.
>>
>> Stick your head back inside Mary's drums where comfort awaits you.
>
> OK

Good. See how quickly you learn from me?

[Tom[_15_]]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:08:07 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> The Pentagon is a pretty big

Thanks for that really useful, timely and engaging information.

<fart>

[Tom[_15_]]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 23:41:51 -0400, Bullitt Silverlight wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:29:25 -0400, Morgans wrote:
>
>> Responding to nut jobs in _ANY_ way give the nut what he wants.
>>
>> It is the reason that this group is all but dead and gone, from the last nut
>> in here.
>>
>> Please, everyone, let them babble. Most of us know the difference, and
>> those that do not won't be influenced by reason or facts.
>
>> Especialy you Pinnino, quit being a stupid ego driven MF assklown.
>
>> What was I thinking?
>>
>> -- Jim in NC
>
> You weren't.

It's in Pinhead's nature. Let him be the moron he is genetically
predestined.

[dgw]

I'll be blunt about this. Tom, you and your conspiracy buddies have
"busted your checkride." You haven't provided anything that relates to
the "r.a. piloting" group. Pick up your political garbage and go wash
dishes somewhere. You don't belong here.

Flying a 767 is kind of like driving a great big car. You turn the
wheel and it goes that way. Push the wheel forward and things on the
ground get big real fast. Even a terrorist can do it.

The skill part is in maintaining straight and level flight ..... nailing
altitude and heading, and keeping it there for a long time. After that,
after you are tired, nailing the center of the glide slope inside the
outer marker on a dark stormy night, when the weather demons are shaking
things up a bit. That's the skill part, that's where real pilots earn
their bones. The rest is just another day at the office. Even a
terrorist can do it.


Tom wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:08:07 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>> The Pentagon is a pretty big
>
> Thanks for that really useful, timely and engaging information.
>
> <fart>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(Edward A. Falk) wrote:

> In article >, Tom > wrote:
> >On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:43:56 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:
> >
> >> In article >, Tom > wrote:
> >>>On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:58:36 -0400, Quaalude wrote:
> >>>
> >>>The reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with
> >>>the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow
> >>>the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half
> >>>the distance of its wingspan ¡X until speed is drastically reduced,
> >>>which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
> >>
> >> You're saying there's a magic cushion that prevents aircraft at cruise
> >> from approaching close to the ground?
> >
> >No and you damn well know that is a complete distortion of the truth.
>
> It looks like you're claiming that it's pysically impossible for an
> aircraft moving at high speed to approach within half a wingspan of
> the ground. Is that what you're claiming or not?
>
> If so, I can assure you you're wrong, and if not, then what's so
> implausible about an aircraft contacting the ground before hitting
> the pentagon?

That's what he learned when he got his Aero Engineering degree at Boxtop
U. He got his flying experience from the comic books.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >, Tom >
wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:06:24 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > In article >, Tom >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:36:54 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article >, Tom >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:38:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hanjour
> >>>>
> >>>> The instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had
> >>>> hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all."
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us/a-trainee-noted-for-incompetence.ht
> >>>> ml
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>> And yet, Orval Fairbairn asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a
> >>>> stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation
> >>>> test pilot.
> >>>
> >>> First of all, if that maneuver would "press the limits of even the most
> >>> experienced test pilot," I would have to question both his experience
> >>> and expertise.
> >>
> >> This is out of your league, Fairbairn, plain and simple. You're a proven
> >> quagmirist know-it-nothing with an overblown ego and a peanut head for a
> >> brain.
> >>
> >> "No-one cares what you "believe", just as your beliefs about weather and
> >> climate have been clearly shown to be ridiculous - negating any
> >> comment you wish to make on other areas of climate science."
> >>
> >> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/v_Z7jYtLlsI>
> >>
> >> "If I can be bothered to show you the facts, the least you can do is to
> >> bother to reply, before you try to spread more crap."
> >>
> >> Your "expertise" extends to <never> building an LSA with a measly 80hp
> >> Jabiru P.O.S.
> >>
> >> Stick your head back inside Mary's drums where comfort awaits you.
> >
> > OK
>
> Good. See how quickly you learn from me?

I learned that you are nothing but a poseur and that you have no
expertise to contribute in a variety of fields.

[Tom[_15_]]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:47:56 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> I

Sorry, you've been dismissed as a fraud.

[Tom[_15_]]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:30:45 -0500, dgw wrote:

> I'll be blunt about this. Tom, you and your conspiracy buddies have
> "busted your checkride." You haven't provided anything that relates to
> the "r.a. piloting" group <blah blah blah>

Then **** off.

[John[_34_]]

On Oct 3, 3:02*pm, wrote:
> Tom > wrote:

<cut>

> Babbling nut case.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Please don't feed the squirrels. They crap on
the picnic table.

Thanks.

[Tom[_15_]]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:13:22 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:

> In article >, Tom > wrote:
>>On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:43:56 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>
>>> In article >, Tom > wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:58:36 -0400, Quaalude wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with
>>>>the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow
>>>>the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half
>>>>the distance of its wingspan ¡X until speed is drastically reduced,
>>>>which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
>>>
>>> You're saying there's a magic cushion that prevents aircraft at cruise
>>> from approaching close to the ground?
>>
>>No and you damn well know that is a complete distortion of the truth.
>
> It looks like you're claiming that it's pysically impossible for an
> aircraft moving at high speed to approach within half a wingspan of
> the ground. Is that what you're claiming or not?

I don't repeat for idiots who can't read with comprehension.

> ... what's so implausible about an aircraft contacting the ground
> before hitting the pentagon?

Nothing. Straw man argument. Nice try, though.

[Tom[_15_]]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 18:46:44 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:

> In article >,
> Quaalude > wrote:
>>Hani Hanjour, the pilot of Flight 77, was so incompetent he could not
>>fly a Cessna in August...
>
> I looked him up. He had a commercial pilot's license. They don't issue
> those to people who are "so incompetent he could not fly a Cessna"
>
> In other words, you lied.

You idiot, Quaalude never claimed any such thing. If he/she did, point
it out. I'll save you the trouble.

The only liar is you.

MOF Dummo, his OP takes neither side of the argument. WTF do you think
"Strange But (Un)True?" as the Subject of the thread means?

Next time you reach into your bag of moronic straw man arguments, tricks
and kiddie attempts at debate, remember this thread where you got
exposed as a body with a cumquat for a head.

[george152]

On 5/10/2011 4:30 a.m., dgw wrote:
> I'll be blunt about this. Tom, you and your conspiracy buddies have
> "busted your checkride." You haven't provided anything that relates to
> the "r.a. piloting" group. Pick up your political garbage and go wash
> dishes somewhere. You don't belong here.
>
> Flying a 767 is kind of like driving a great big car. You turn the wheel
> and it goes that way. Push the wheel forward and things on the ground
> get big real fast. Even a terrorist can do it.
>
> The skill part is in maintaining straight and level flight ..... nailing
> altitude and heading, and keeping it there for a long time. After that,
> after you are tired, nailing the center of the glide slope inside the
> outer marker on a dark stormy night, when the weather demons are shaking
> things up a bit. That's the skill part, that's where real pilots earn
> their bones. The rest is just another day at the office. Even a
> terrorist can do it.

Good explanation that's going to be ignored by the nonpilot conspiracy kook.

[Tom[_15_]]

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:00:27 +1300, george152 wrote:

> that's going to be ignored by the nonpilot

So you think there was no pilot? Remote controlled aircraft? Or extra
special good luck leprechaunauts? lol

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >, Tom >
wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:47:56 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > I
>
> Sorry, you've been dismissed as a fraud.

No -- YOU are the fraud! I am for real and can prove it.

[george152]

On 5/10/2011 8:17 a.m., Tom wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:00:27 +1300, george152 wrote:
>
>> that's going to be ignored by the nonpilot
>
> So you think there was no pilot? Remote controlled aircraft? Or extra
> special good luck leprechaunauts? lol

Do you work at being a moron or does it come straight from a lack of an
education ?

[150flivver]

On Oct 3, 12:13*pm, Tom > wrote:
>
> The reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with
> the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow
> the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half
> the distance of its wingspan — until speed is drastically reduced,
> which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
>
> Flight 77 "hit the Pentagon" at cruising speed.
>
> So speaketh an aeronautical engineer.

Looks like another alumnus of Coldine University.

[Tom[_15_]]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 18:53:53 -0700 (PDT), 150flivver wrote:

> On Oct 3, 12:13Â*pm, Tom > wrote:
>>
>> The reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with
>> the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow
>> the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half
>> the distance of its wingspan — until speed is drastically reduced,
>> which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
>>
>> Flight 77 "hit the Pentagon" at cruising speed.
>>
>> So speaketh an aeronautical engineer.
>
> Looks like another alumnus of Coldine University.

Glad you asked.

http://911review.org/brad.com/hijacker_pilots.html

So very sorry you're 100% absolutely incorrect.

[Tom[_15_]]

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:48:34 +1300, george152 wrote:

> On 5/10/2011 8:17 a.m., Tom wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:00:27 +1300, george152 wrote:
>>
>>> that's going to be ignored by the nonpilot
>>
>> So you think there was no pilot? Remote controlled aircraft? Or extra
>> special good luck leprechaunauts? lol
>
> <snipped diversion>

Let's try this again, shall we?

So you think there was no pilot? Remote controlled aircraft? Or extra
special good luck leprechaunauts?

And people think I have an active imagination. lol

[Tom[_15_]]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:45:47 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:

> In article >, Tom > wrote:
>
>>>>Hani Hanjour, the pilot of Flight 77, was so incompetent he could not
>>>>fly a Cessna in August...
>>>
>>> I looked him up. He had a commercial pilot's license. They don't issue
>>> those to people who are "so incompetent he could not fly a Cessna"
>>>
>>> In other words, you lied.
>>
>>You idiot, Quaalude never claimed any such thing.
>
> Go back and re-read the first sentence of the first post of this
> thread, which I quote above.

Right it says he was so incompetent he could not fly a Cessna in August.
Point?

[Quaalude]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:40:19 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:

> In article >, Tom > wrote:
>>On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:38:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>And yet, Orval Fairbairn asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a
>>stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation
>>test pilot.
>
> Given a few days practice in Microsoft Flight Simulator, *anybody*
> could do it.

Hanjour not on 77

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/hijackers.html>

[Tom[_15_]]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 00:14:44 -0400, Quaalude wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:40:19 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:
>
>> In article >, Tom > wrote:
>>>On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:38:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>
>>>And yet, Orval Fairbairn asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a
>>>stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation
>>>test pilot.
>>
>> Given a few days practice in Microsoft Flight Simulator, *anybody*
>> could do it.
>
> Hanjour not on 77
>
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/hijackers.html>

*LOL*

So everyone in this thread believes that a "pilot" who wasn't even on
Flight 77 was responsible...oh forget it.

*LOL*

[Tom[_15_]]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:08:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >, Tom >
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:47:56 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>> I
>>
>> Sorry, you've been dismissed as a fraud.
>
> <snipped>

Any more lies, people? Any more lies you want to project on to me?

No?

In your thirst for Usenet blood, you've shown yourselves as you truly
are. Narrow minded, age dazed little nobodies with compartmentalized
minds and Elitist driven mentalities.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >, Tom >
wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:08:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > In article >, Tom >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:47:56 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >>
> >>> I
> >>
> >> Sorry, you've been dismissed as a fraud.
> >
> > <snipped>
>
> Any more lies, people? Any more lies you want to project on to me?
>
> No?
>
> In your thirst for Usenet blood, you've shown yourselves as you truly
> are. Narrow minded, age dazed little nobodies with compartmentalized
> minds and Elitist driven mentalities.

.... and you have shown yourself as a gullible fool and a fraud. You have
invaded rec.aviation.piloting with your kookbabble conspiracy crap and
then pretended to have some "expertise" (which turned out to be
nonexistent.) Then you attacked those who have exposed your fraud --
typical of someone who is clearly off his rocker.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
>,
150flivver > wrote:

> On Oct 3, 12:13*pm, Tom > wrote:
> >
> > The reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with
> > the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow
> > the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half
> > the distance of its wingspan ‹ until speed is drastically reduced,
> > which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
> >
> > Flight 77 "hit the Pentagon" at cruising speed.
> >
> > So speaketh an aeronautical engineer.
>
> Looks like another alumnus of Coldine University.

N0 -- Boxtop University. I wonder how many "Captain Crunch" boxtops he
had to send in for his fake "degree."

[Tom[_15_]]

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:49:52 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

>> Any more lies, people? Any more lies you want to project on to me?
>>
>> No?
>>
>> In your thirst for Usenet blood, you've shown yourselves as you truly
>> are. Narrow minded, age dazed little nobodies with compartmentalized
>> minds and Elitist driven mentalities.
>
> ... and <more lies snipped>

Sorry, you've been dismissed as a fraud.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >, Tom >
wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 18:53:53 -0700 (PDT), 150flivver wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 12:13Â*pm, Tom > wrote:
> >>
> >> The reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with
> >> the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow
> >> the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half
> >> the distance of its wingspan — until speed is drastically reduced,
> >> which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
> >>
> >> Flight 77 "hit the Pentagon" at cruising speed.
> >>
> >> So speaketh an aeronautical engineer.
> >
> > Looks like another alumnus of Coldine University.
>
> Glad you asked.
>
> http://911review.org/brad.com/hijacker_pilots.html
>
> So very sorry you're 100% absolutely incorrect.

The author assumes too much. The conditions of the day were "severe
clear," obviating the need for "sophisticated navigation devices."
Instrument flying skills not needed there.

Bottom line: The whole article is irrelevant, since ground reference was
abundant.

Even if you actually *were* an aeronautical engineer, you would not have
had training in any aircraft or piloting, so your claims would be
irrelevant (and are).

[Tom[_15_]]

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:57:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >, Tom >
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 18:53:53 -0700 (PDT), 150flivver wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 3, 12:13Â*pm, Tom > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with
>>>> the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow
>>>> the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half
>>>> the distance of its wingspan — until speed is drastically reduced,
>>>> which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
>>>>
>>>> Flight 77 "hit the Pentagon" at cruising speed.
>>>>
>>>> So speaketh an aeronautical engineer.
>>>
>>> Looks like another alumnus of /Coldine University/.
>>
>> Glad you asked.
>>
>> http://911review.org/brad.com/hijacker_pilots.html
>>
>> So very sorry you're 100% absolutely incorrect.
>
> The author assumes too much. <snipped distortions and lies>

Assklown, you lied and claimed the author was from "Coldine University".
Assklown, I posted the link that showed, well, that you're a lying
assklown.

Life is tough on assklowns but you knew this already.

[Tom[_15_]]

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:50:51 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article
> >,
> 150flivver > wrote:
>
>> On Oct 3, 12:13*pm, Tom > wrote:
>>>
>>> The reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with
>>> the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow
>>> the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half
>>> the distance of its wingspan ‹ until speed is drastically reduced,
>>> which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
>>>
>>> Flight 77 "hit the Pentagon" at cruising speed.
>>>
>>> So speaketh an aeronautical engineer.
>>
>> Looks like another alumnus of Coldine University.
>
> N0 -- Boxtop University. I wonder how many "Captain Crunch" boxtops he
> had to send in for his fake "degree."

Gee, I dunno. Maybe I give a **** about being accurate. And maybe I
don't much care about know-nothing blowhards who throw bad advice and
accusations around because they're too emotionally stunted to admit
they're just too damned stupid to know what the **** they're talking
about.

Ever stop to think for a second that sometimes when it seems like
everyone is on your ass there's a reason for it? And that reason is you?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >, Tom >
wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:49:52 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> >> Any more lies, people? Any more lies you want to project on to me?
> >>
> >> No?
> >>
> >> In your thirst for Usenet blood, you've shown yourselves as you truly
> >> are. Narrow minded, age dazed little nobodies with compartmentalized
> >> minds and Elitist driven mentalities.
> >
> > ... and <more lies snipped>
>
> Sorry, you've been dismissed as a fraud.

It is you, sir who are the fraud!

BTW: How many "Captain Crunch" boxtops did you have to send in to get
your claimed "aeronautical engineering degree?"

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >, Tom >
wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:50:51 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > 150flivver > wrote:
> >
> >> On Oct 3, 12:13*pm, Tom > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with
> >>> the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow
> >>> the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half
> >>> the distance of its wingspan ‹ until speed is drastically reduced,
> >>> which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
> >>>
> >>> Flight 77 "hit the Pentagon" at cruising speed.
> >>>
> >>> So speaketh an aeronautical engineer.
> >>
> >> Looks like another alumnus of Coldine University.
> >
> > N0 -- Boxtop University. I wonder how many "Captain Crunch" boxtops he
> > had to send in for his fake "degree."
>
> Gee, I dunno. Maybe I give a **** about being accurate. And maybe I
> don't much care about know-nothing blowhards who throw bad advice and
> accusations around because they're too emotionally stunted to admit
> they're just too damned stupid to know what the **** they're talking
> about.
>
> Ever stop to think for a second that sometimes when it seems like
> everyone is on your ass there's a reason for it? And that reason is you?

In that case, you need to check your six, fool!

[Tom[_15_]]

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:09:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> get
> your claimed "aeronautical engineering degree?"

Lie.

Never claimed I was.

You're full of more **** than a retard's diaper.

[george152]

On 6/10/2011 5:50 a.m., Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article
> >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On Oct 3, 12:13 pm, > wrote:
>>>
>>> The reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with
>>> the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow
>>> the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half
>>> the distance of its wingspan ‹ until speed is drastically reduced,
>>> which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
>>>
>>> Flight 77 "hit the Pentagon" at cruising speed.
>>>
>>> So speaketh an aeronautical engineer.
>>
>> Looks like another alumnus of Coldine University.
>
> N0 -- Boxtop University. I wonder how many "Captain Crunch" boxtops he
> had to send in for his fake "degree."

C'mon Orval. he got his degree from a thermometer

[150flivver]

On Oct 5, 2:15*pm, george152 > wrote:
> On 6/10/2011 5:50 a.m., Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > * > *wrote:
>
> >> On Oct 3, 12:13 pm, > *wrote:
>
> >>> The reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with
> >>> the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow
> >>> the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half
> >>> the distance of its wingspan until speed is drastically reduced,
> >>> which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
>
> >>> Flight 77 "hit the Pentagon" at cruising speed.
>
> >>> So speaketh an aeronautical engineer.
>
> >> Looks like another alumnus of Coldine University.
>
> > N0 -- Boxtop University. I wonder how many "Captain Crunch" boxtops he
> > had to send in for his fake "degree."
>
> C'mon Orval. he got his degree from a thermometer

Coldine U is the bogus school the Bogus Dr. Quin teaches bogus
students like Tom bogus conspiracy theory. Might as well add bogus
aeronautical engineering to his credentials as well as bogus piloting
experience.

[Richard[_11_]]

On Oct 4, 12:04*pm, Tom > wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:47:56 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > I
>
> Sorry, you've been dismissed as a fraud.

No, that's you dismissed as a fraud, fjucktard.

Now go back to playing dolls.

[Richard[_11_]]

On Oct 3, 1:26*pm, Tom > wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:40:19 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:
> > In article >, Tom > wrote:
> >>On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:38:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> >>And yet, Orval Fairbairn asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a
> >>stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation
> >>test pilot.
>
> > Given a few days practice in Microsoft Flight Simulator, *anybody*
> > could do it.
>
> Brother, you got some catching it up to do.
>
> Not only is it implausible, it's impossible.
>
> Start here:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=57...58033&hl=en
>
> And end here:
>
> http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o(if vimeo gives you problems)
>
> Supplemental FAQ:
>
> http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-ca..._plane_hit.html
>
> You have to imagine them coming out of that turn, flying tree top level,
> being able to see or know where the Pentagon is miles away at the
> bottom of a ridge, treeline, highways, and a high-rise skyline- and
> then be able to miss the VDOT tower or fly above it, then drop down
> threading itself through 5 light poles, while missing the VDOT camera
> mast next to pole 1 and then fly low and level just a few feet above
> the lawn, skimming on it's belly into the first floor. That on it's
> face is implausible, the above evidence based presentations show it is
> IMPOSSIBLE.
>
> Hani wasn't piloting that plane. <eom>

Ah yes! Those reputable "sources" from teh intrawebs! Of course!
That's the very fount from which all knowledge springs! IS THAT ALL
YOU GOT SONNY??

****ing retards. Give your computer back to your mom, go take your
meds and play in the freeway, loon-boi.

[Richard[_11_]]

On Oct 4, 2:17*pm, Tom > wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:00:27 +1300, george152 wrote:
> > *that's going to be ignored by the nonpilot
>
> So you think there was no pilot? Remote controlled aircraft? Or extra
> special good luck leprechaunauts? lol

No, oh clueless ******, he's referring to YOU, the loon, the nutjob,
wingnut, asshat, fjucktard, in short YOU are the nonpilot.

[Richard[_11_]]

On Oct 4, 10:50*pm, Tom > wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:45:47 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:
> > In article >, Tom > wrote:
>
> >>>>Hani Hanjour, the pilot of Flight 77, was so incompetent he could not
> >>>>fly a Cessna in August...
>
> >>> I looked him up. *He had a commercial pilot's license. *They don't issue
> >>> those to people who are "so incompetent he could not fly a Cessna"
>
> >>> In other words, you lied.
>
> >>You idiot, Quaalude never claimed any such thing.
>
> > Go back and re-read the first sentence of the first post of this
> > thread, which I quote above.
>
> Right it says he was so incompetent he could not fly a Cessna in August.
> Point?

It's on the top of your empty head, loon-boi.

[george152]

On 7/10/2011 1:42 a.m., Richard wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2:17 pm, > wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:00:27 +1300, george152 wrote:
>>> that's going to be ignored by the nonpilot
>>
>> So you think there was no pilot? Remote controlled aircraft? Or extra
>> special good luck leprechaunauts? lol
>
> No, oh clueless ******, he's referring to YOU, the loon, the nutjob,
> wingnut, asshat, fjucktard, in short YOU are the nonpilot.
>

Oh he knew what I meant alright. It's just he hasn't got the honesty to
admit it...

[Tom[_15_]]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:53:54 +1300, george152 wrote:

> On 7/10/2011 1:42 a.m., Richard wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 2:17 pm, > wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:00:27 +1300, george152 wrote:
>>>> that's going to be ignored by the nonpilot
>>>
>>> So you think there was no pilot? Remote controlled aircraft? Or extra
>>> special good luck leprechaunauts? lol
>>
>> No, oh clueless ******, he's referring to YOU, the loon, the nutjob,
>> wingnut, asshat, fjucktard, in short YOU are the nonpilot.
>>
>
> Oh he knew what I meant alright. It's just he hasn't got the honesty to
> admit it...

Let's try this again, shall we?

So you think there was no pilot? Remote controlled aircraft? Or extra
special good luck leprechaunauts?

Any chance you have any intention of debating instead of trolling like a
5th grader?