Re: Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible [Archive]

TRUTH

February 22nd 06, 05:48 AM

Thank you for all the responses. It's nice to get other opinions. There's
a few things that weren't commented on though.

For instance.....

"In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an
EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six
large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard”
instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight
data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and
progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with
regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no
ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and
then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this
information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an
instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL
AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in
relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as
“IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules."

"According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up
over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a
rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end
of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost
forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in
the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors
later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his
life depended on it)."

"The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic
controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a
commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers
at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “The speed, the
maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar
room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a
military plane.”"

"And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the
Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him."

"But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot.
You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most
densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military
brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order
to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn
and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns
himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited
due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120
civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work
included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing)."

"I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large
commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A
discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash
sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the
scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown
whole semi-trucks off the roads.)

"Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-
lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH."

According to the article, the alledged hijackers would have had to be
trained instrument pilots, and thoroughly familiar with the 757/767 six
large screen LCD display in order to pilot the aircraft.

Also, how did the alledged highjacker fly into the Pentagon and make that
expert maneuver? Where's the 757 wreakage? How did such a large plane
make such a small hole? What about Sagadevan's comments about it not
being physically possible to fly a 757 twenty feet above the ground at
400MPH?

To answer some of your questions... The consensus of the 9/11 Truth
Movement is that the planes were flown remote control, and that the
passengers' voices were synthesized using a new technology. (One piece of
evidence for this is this cell phone call quote from a passenger: "Hello
mom, this is Mark Bingham." When was the last time your called your
mother and announced your last name?) Very weird...

khobar

February 22nd 06, 06:21 AM

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
> Thank you for all the responses. It's nice to get other opinions. There's
> a few things that weren't commented on though.
>
> For instance.....
>
> "In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an
> EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six
> large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard"
> instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight
> data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and
> progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with
> regard to time and speed as well. When flying "blind", I.e., with no
> ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and
> then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this
> information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an
> instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL
> AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't have a clue where s/he was in
> relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as
> "IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules."
>
>
> "According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops up
> over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a
> rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end
> of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost
> forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in
> the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors
> later commented the hapless fellow couldn't have spelt the word if his
> life depended on it)."
>
> "The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic
> controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a
> commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers
> at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, "The speed, the
> maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar
> room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a
> military plane.""
>
> "And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the
> Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him."
>
> "But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot.
> You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards one of the most
> densely populated wings of the Pentagon-and one occupied by top military
> brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order
> to save these men's lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn
> and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns
> himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited
> due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120
> civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work
> included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing)."
>
> "I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large
> commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A
> discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash
> sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the
> scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown
> whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
>
> "Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-
> lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH."
>
>
>
>
> According to the article, the alledged hijackers would have had to be
> trained instrument pilots, and thoroughly familiar with the 757/767 six
> large screen LCD display in order to pilot the aircraft.

As the article states,

"When flying "blind", I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a
highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently.
If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately
(and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO
SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't have a clue where s/he was
in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as
"IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules."

At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the established facts
as to what happened that day are completely consistent with what the article
claims. Oops.

Paul Nixon

TRUTH

February 22nd 06, 06:33 AM

"khobar" > wrote in
news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:

>
> "TRUTH" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Thank you for all the responses. It's nice to get other opinions.
>> There's a few things that weren't commented on though.
>>
>> For instance.....
>>
>> "In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an
>> EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of
>> six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted
>> "hard" instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system
>> and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation,
>> position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical
>> dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When
>> flying "blind", I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a
>> highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data
>> intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly,
>> precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to
>> do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot
>> wouldn't have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight
>> under such conditions is referred to as "IFR", or Instrument Flight
>> Rules."
>>
>>
>> "According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops
>> up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn
>> at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at
>> the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh,
>> I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the
>> transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one
>> of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn't have
>> spelt the word if his life depended on it)."
>>
>> "The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic
>> controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was
>> a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic
>> controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said,
>> "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all
>> thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic
>> controllers, that that was a military plane.""
>>
>> "And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the
>> Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him."
>>
>> "But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze
>> pilot. You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards one
>> of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon-and one occupied
>> by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld.
>> Presumably in order to save these men's lives, he then executes a
>> sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the
>> opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the
>> Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations
>> that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction
>> workers in that wing who were killed; their work included
>> blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing)."
>>
>> "I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large
>> commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A
>> discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash
>> sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the
>> scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown
>> whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
>>
>> "Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a
>> 200,000- lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> According to the article, the alledged hijackers would have had to be
>> trained instrument pilots, and thoroughly familiar with the 757/767
>> six large screen LCD display in order to pilot the aircraft.
>
> As the article states,
>
> "When flying "blind", I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a
> highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data
> intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly,
> precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to
> do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot
> wouldn't have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight
> under such conditions is referred to as "IFR", or Instrument Flight
> Rules."
>
> At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the established
> facts as to what happened that day are completely consistent with what
> the article claims. Oops.
>
> Paul Nixon
>
>
>

On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?

Pooh Bear

February 22nd 06, 06:34 AM

TRUTH wrote:

> Thank you for all the responses. It's nice to get other opinions. There's
> a few things that weren't commented on though.
>
> For instance.....
>
> "In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an
> EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six
> large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard”
> instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight
> data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and
> progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with
> regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no
> ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and
> then apply, this data intelligently.

They weren't *flying blind*.

Quite the reverse. it was a lovely day with great visibility.

> If one cannot translate this
> information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an
> instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL
> AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in
> relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as
> “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules."

Hence not applicable. It was VFR weather.

> "According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up
> over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a
> rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end
> of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost
> forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in
> the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors
> later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his
> life depended on it)."

The " precise diving turn " is simply someone's imagination. Probably the
reporter's version of events. It makes for more 'compelling' copy.

> "The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic
> controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a
> commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers
> at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “The speed, the
> maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar
> room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a
> military plane.”"

That's because they don't normally see commerical planes flown like that ! It
doesn't mean it can't be done. Commercial flights have regard to passenger
sensitivities.

> "And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the
> Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him."

Typical journalist hype. The journalist wan't there on the flight deck was he
so how does he or anyone else know what Hanjour *saw* ?

Etc.

Yawn.

Graham

TRUTH

February 22nd 06, 06:35 AM

"khobar" > wrote in
news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:

>
> "TRUTH" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Thank you for all the responses. It's nice to get other opinions.
>> There's a few things that weren't commented on though.
>>
>> For instance.....
>>
>> "In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an
>> EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of
>> six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted
>> "hard" instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system
>> and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation,
>> position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical
>> dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When
>> flying "blind", I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a
>> highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data
>> intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly,
>> precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to
>> do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot
>> wouldn't have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight
>> under such conditions is referred to as "IFR", or Instrument Flight
>> Rules."
>>
>>
>> "According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops
>> up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn
>> at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at
>> the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh,
>> I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the
>> transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one
>> of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn't have
>> spelt the word if his life depended on it)."
>>
>> "The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic
>> controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was
>> a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic
>> controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said,
>> "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all
>> thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic
>> controllers, that that was a military plane.""
>>
>> "And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the
>> Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him."
>>
>> "But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze
>> pilot. You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards one
>> of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon-and one occupied
>> by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld.
>> Presumably in order to save these men's lives, he then executes a
>> sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the
>> opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the
>> Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations
>> that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction
>> workers in that wing who were killed; their work included
>> blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing)."
>>
>> "I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large
>> commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A
>> discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash
>> sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the
>> scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown
>> whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
>>
>> "Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a
>> 200,000- lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> According to the article, the alledged hijackers would have had to be
>> trained instrument pilots, and thoroughly familiar with the 757/767
>> six large screen LCD display in order to pilot the aircraft.
>
> As the article states,
>
> "When flying "blind", I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a
> highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data
> intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly,
> precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to
> do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot
> wouldn't have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight
> under such conditions is referred to as "IFR", or Instrument Flight
> Rules."
>
> At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the established
> facts as to what happened that day are completely consistent with what
> the article claims. Oops.
>
> Paul Nixon

The government's version of 9/11 is not established fact... not to those
who can read between the lines :)

Pooh Bear

February 22nd 06, 07:06 AM

TRUTH wrote:

> "khobar" > wrote in
> news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:
>
> > At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the established
> > facts as to what happened that day are completely consistent with what
> > the article claims. Oops.
> >
> > Paul Nixon
>
> On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
> cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?

The pilot clearly *could* see the ground ( it was a lovely clear day ).

There is no evidence AFAIK that the pilots couldn't use instruments either.

Graham

mrtravel

February 22nd 06, 07:10 AM

TRUTH wrote

> On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
> cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?

Why couldn't they see the ground?

OH yeah, I know... the tall buildings blocked their view.

What do YOU think really happened?
You know soooooooo much about what "didn't happen".

TRUTH

February 22nd 06, 07:36 AM

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> "khobar" > wrote in
>> news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:
>>
>> > At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the
>> > established facts as to what happened that day are completely
>> > consistent with what the article claims. Oops.
>> >
>> > Paul Nixon
>>
>> On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
>> cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?
>
> The pilot clearly *could* see the ground ( it was a lovely clear day
> ).
>
> There is no evidence AFAIK that the pilots couldn't use instruments
> either.
>
>
> Graham
>
>

The point is that the article's author says that pilots use their
instruments when flying at that high altitude. So if they're not
instrument trained, aren't they really "flying blind"? (I know I would
be:))

The flight instructors said they couldn't fly. That's been reported all
over the news the past few years. And at least one of them couldn't even
spell. How on earth could they pilot 757/767s? How is it realistic to
think that they could?

btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots? If so, are any of
you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)? Are there any Aeronautical
Engineers here who have the education and training to debunk the article
scientifically?

Thanks

mrtravel

February 22nd 06, 09:44 AM

TRUTH wrote:
>
> The point is that the article's author says that pilots use their
> instruments when flying at that high altitude. So if they're not
> instrument trained, aren't they really "flying blind"? (I know I would
> be:))

The next time you fly, look out the window.
If it is a clear day, you can make out object, even at altitude.
I have no trouble recognizing Monterey and Santa Cruz, even when flying
to SJC at night.

>
> The flight instructors said they couldn't fly.

So, if they couldn't fly, why did they hijack the plane and fly it?
Are you suggesting the planes weren't hijacked by the people that took
these classes?

That's been reported all
> over the news the past few years. And at least one of them couldn't even
> spell. How on earth could they pilot 757/767s? How is it realistic to
> think that they could?

Do you think they would have picked someone illiterate to fly the planes?

>
>
> btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots? If so, are any of
> you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)? Are there any Aeronautical
> Engineers here who have the education and training to debunk the article
> scientifically?

I don't need to debunk the article. There is ample evidence of what
happened, especially in the PA crash, unless you thought the PA incident
was unrelated.

Thomas Borchert

February 22nd 06, 10:00 AM

Truth,

> The consensus of the 9/11 Truth
> Movement
>

Ah, the 9/11 Truth Movement! Thanks for giving me the laugh of the day.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

February 22nd 06, 10:00 AM

Truth,

> btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots? If so, are any of
> you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)? Are there any Aeronautical
> Engineers here who have the education and training to debunk the article
> scientifically?
>

Hey, WAKE UP! It's 2006. Do you really, honestly think no one has addressed
those "issues" since 9/11/2001? Everybody and his brother have - in the
first MINUTES after the incident. Search the internet, pull the TV "news"
tapes. You're way behind in your "fact finding"...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

TRUTH

February 22nd 06, 10:35 AM

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Truth,
>
>> The consensus of the 9/11 Truth
>> Movement
>>
>
> Ah, the 9/11 Truth Movement! Thanks for giving me the laugh of the day.
>

Yes! And I shall have the last laugh. Believe me.

mrtravel

February 22nd 06, 10:40 AM

TRUTH wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>TRUTH wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots? If so, are
>>>any of you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)? Are there any
>>>Aeronautical Engineers here who have the education and training to
>>>debunk the article scientifically?
>>
>>I have flown light aircraft. It's easier than you might think. It's
>>also not such a big deal to fly big jets when you simply just want to
>>crash them.
>>
>>Graham
>>
>>
>
>
>
> But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
> Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?

OK... Tell us what you think REALLY happened?

Jim Macklin

February 22nd 06, 11:13 AM

The whole point of the EFIS display is that a picture is
easier to understand than a few dozen dials. There is no
secret anymore about transponders and the hijack codes,
turning the transponder off is SOP for a hijackers. If the
transponder is on and the aircraft is maneuvering and
changing altitude faster than the refresh rate of the radar
sweep, it will blank on the screen and go into a coast mode.

The hard part of crashing into a particular spot is finding
the spot, the Pentagon is easy to see as were the WTC
towers, but just try to find the Wal-Mart store from 3,000
feet 15 miles away.

Atlantic Ocean, Long Island, Manhattan Island, easy to see
and they point to the WTC.

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
| Thank you for all the responses. It's nice to get other
opinions. There's
| a few things that weren't commented on though.
|
| For instance.....
|
| "In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be
faced with an
| EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel
comprised of six
| large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of
assorted "hard"
| instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft
system and flight
| data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation,
position and
| progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions,
but also with
| regard to time and speed as well. When flying "blind",
I.e., with no
| ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to
interpret, and
| then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot
translate this
| information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it
takes an
| instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO
SITUATIONAL
| AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't have a clue where s/he
was in
| relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is
referred to as
| "IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules."
|
|
| "According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then
suddenly pops up
| over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise
diving turn at a
| rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500
ft/min, at the end
| of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level.
Oh, I almost
| forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the
transponder in
| the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of
his instructors
| later commented the hapless fellow couldn't have spelt the
word if his
| life depended on it)."
|
| "The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the
air traffic
| controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their
screen was a
| commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air
traffic controllers
| at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said,
"The speed, the
| maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in
the radar
| room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that
that was a
| military plane.""
|
| "And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour
finds the
| Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him."
|
| "But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim
kamikaze pilot.
| You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards
one of the most
| densely populated wings of the Pentagon-and one occupied
by top military
| brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld.
Presumably in order
| to save these men's lives, he then executes a sweeping
270-degree turn
| and approaches the building from the opposite direction
and aligns
| himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was
virtually uninhabited
| due to extensive renovations that were underway (there
were some 120
| civilians construction workers in that wing who were
killed; their work
| included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing)."
|
| "I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying
a large
| commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400
MPH. A
| discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex
compression, downwash
| sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are
beyond the
| scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would
have blown
| whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
|
| "Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to
fly a 200,000-
| lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH."
|
|
|
|
| According to the article, the alledged hijackers would
have had to be
| trained instrument pilots, and thoroughly familiar with
the 757/767 six
| large screen LCD display in order to pilot the aircraft.
|
| Also, how did the alledged highjacker fly into the
Pentagon and make that
| expert maneuver? Where's the 757 wreakage? How did such a
large plane
| make such a small hole? What about Sagadevan's comments
about it not
| being physically possible to fly a 757 twenty feet above
the ground at
| 400MPH?
|
|
|
| To answer some of your questions... The consensus of the
9/11 Truth
| Movement is that the planes were flown remote control, and
that the
| passengers' voices were synthesized using a new
technology. (One piece of
| evidence for this is this cell phone call quote from a
passenger: "Hello
| mom, this is Mark Bingham." When was the last time your
called your
| mother and announced your last name?) Very weird...

Jim Macklin

February 22nd 06, 11:16 AM

Jim Macklin

February 22nd 06, 11:19 AM

Jim Macklin

February 22nd 06, 11:28 AM

One day at school, a fourth grade teacher ask the students
what their daddy did for a living. All the kids said the
usual stuff. Doctor, lawyer, butcher, car mechanic, banker,
carpenter..... One little girl said her daddy was an exotic
dancer in a gay bar. He took his clothes off and danced for
men. If he was offered money, he'd even go home with the
customers and have sex with them.

The teacher was shocked and stopped the "lesson" and sent
the other kids out to play. The teacher then asked the
child if what was said was TRUE. The child said, "No, he is
a blogger pushing the theory that 9/11 was a conspiracy by
the US government and I was to embarrassed to say so.

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
| Thomas Borchert > wrote in
| :
|
| > Truth,
| >
| >> The consensus of the 9/11 Truth
| >> Movement
| >>
| >
| > Ah, the 9/11 Truth Movement! Thanks for giving me the
laugh of the day.
| >
|
|
|
| Yes! And I shall have the last laugh. Believe me.

mrtravel

February 22nd 06, 11:59 AM

TRUTH wrote:

> Are you *qualified* to debunk the article, may I ask?

What "expertise" is required? Do you expect there aren't any experts
around that can debunk this fabrication?
It doesn't take a genus to understand that steering a plane into a
building 1400 feet tall and hundreds of feet wide would be possible with
some training? You do realize, of course, that non-pilots have actually
landed some aircraft in emergencies? Of course they weren't 757's, but
that doesn't mean someone with training couldn't have steered one into
the WTC.

You are stating a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon. Are you
suggesting that all of the people who stated it was a 757 actual saw a
F-14 and got mixed up? Do you think the 757 that normally flies with
that flight numeber took off and landed at a secret base and the
passengers didn't die at the Pentagon?

Thomas Borchert

February 22nd 06, 12:31 PM

Truth,

> Yes! And I shall have the last laugh. Believe me.
>

Oh, it's all a matter of belief to you. Sorry, I won't discuss your
wacky religion. As for the facts, well, you're wrong. But you can
believe all you want.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dylan Smith

February 22nd 06, 12:51 PM

On 2006-02-22, TRUTH > wrote:
>> A turn as you described it is not a precision manoevre. It's a turn. The
>> plane can practically fly that itself with that degree of precision with
>> almost no pilot input.
>
> It was a 360 degree diving precision maneuver. Do you have qualifications
> to refute the aeronautical engineer who quote the article may I ask please?

Aeronautical engineers don't define precision flying any more than
chickens define how eggs are cooked. Pilots define what is precision
flying. A 360 degree descending flight path is something any student
pilot can accomplish with a high degree of accuracy. I have done
probably hundreds of these so-called 'precision maneuvers' myself. A 360
degree descending turn is a *basic* manuever, regardless of what any
aeronautical engineer might say, just as in a hard boiled egg is a basic
way to cook an egg, no matter what a chicken might think.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Pooh Bear

February 22nd 06, 02:29 PM

TRUTH wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> > TRUTH wrote:
>
> >> btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots? If so, are
> >> any of you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)? Are there any
> >> Aeronautical Engineers here who have the education and training to
> >> debunk the article scientifically?
> >
> > I have flown light aircraft. It's easier than you might think. It's
> > also not such a big deal to fly big jets when you simply just want to
> > crash them.
> >
> > Graham
>
> But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
> Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?

It *wasn't* a precision manuevre. There's just a few clots who make out it
was in order to try and falsely bolster their silly 'argument'.

Graham

B a r r y

February 22nd 06, 02:31 PM

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> A turn as you described it is not a precision manoevre. It's a turn. The
> plane can practically fly that itself with that degree of precision with
> almost no pilot input.

Especially when the only real goal is to keep the plane intact until it
hits the target. It doesn't matter how ugly and violent the turns are,
only that the plane continues to fly. Even stress damage is
inconsequential if it's less than failure limits.

Students with zero stick time turn airplanes during the very first
lesson. It's not very hard to do.

Skill only gets involved when one needs to keep passengers comfortable,
fly smoothly, fly in bad weather or tight conditions, or avoid breaking
an airplane.

These guys flew airplanes into targets that were visible from far away,
located in the middle of an area (the NYC skyline) that's visible from
_extremely_ far away, with a huge river that points right to it on a
perfect VFR day.

Even a non-pilot who's been a passenger, just once on a day that clear,
should be able to understand just how far away the NYC skyline is visible.

I'm a "real" pilot who has no doubt those guys flew those planes...

Pooh Bear

February 22nd 06, 02:31 PM

TRUTH wrote:

> Dylan Smith > wrote in
> :
>
> > On 2006-02-22, TRUTH > wrote:
> >> But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
> >> Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?
> >
> > A turn as you described it is not a precision manoevre. It's a turn. The
> > plane can practically fly that itself with that degree of precision with
> > almost no pilot input.
>
> It was a 360 degree diving precision maneuver. Do you have qualifications
> to refute the aeronautical engineer who quote the article may I ask please?

You mean to refuse *ONE* kook idiot ?

How about al the pilots who say it *wasn't* precision flying at all ?

Graham

Newps

February 22nd 06, 03:06 PM

TRUTH wrote:

>
> "In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an
> EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six
> large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard”
> instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight
> data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and
> progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with
> regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no
> ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and
> then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this
> information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an
> instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL
> AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in
> relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as
> “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules."

It was a clear sunny day so everything you said above is irrelavant.
Also it does not take an instrument rated pilot to do lok at the EFIS
and determine where you are. It is much easier to tell where you are
BECAUSE of the EFIS.

>
>
> "According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up
> over Washington DC

The radar controller never said he popped up without warning.

and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a
> rate of 360 degrees/minute

There was nothing incredibly precise about it, or did there need to be.

while descending at 3,500 ft/min,

A descent of that rate is in the middle of the normal range for an airliner.

at the end
> of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level.

He didn't level out, he crashed into the building.

Oh, I almost
> forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in
> the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver

If you know where it is it's like turning off a light.

(one of his instructors
> later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his
> life depended on it)."

He was a foreigner, spelling was not second nature.

>
> "The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic
> controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a
> commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers
> at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “The speed, the
> maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar
> room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a
> military plane.”"

Because it was unexpecte, not because it was difficult.

>
> "And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the
> Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him."

Have you seen a picture of the area from the air? Antbody could pick
out the Pentagon.

>
> "But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot.
> You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most
> densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military
> brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld.

He wouldn't have any idea who occupied that part of the Pentagon.

Presumably in order
> to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn
> and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns
> himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited
> due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120
> civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work
> included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing)."

He did that because he was going to miss the building on his first attempt.

>
> "I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large
> commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH.

Nothing impossible about it.

A
> discussion on ground effect energy,

No such thing.

tip vortex compression,

You're making **** up.

downwash
> sheet reaction,

Now that's just funny.

wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the
> scope of this article

Wake turbulence and jet blast affect aircraft behind the one making it.

(the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown
> whole semi-trucks off the roads.)

Sure, if the trucks were within a couple hundred feet and the aircraft
was sitting on the ground. But a flying aircraft cannot blow any
vehicle over.

>
> "Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-
> lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH."

It's well within the capabilities of every airliner.

>
>
>
>
> According to the article, the alledged hijackers would have had to be
> trained instrument pilots,

No.

and thoroughly familiar with the 757/767 six
> large screen LCD display in order to pilot the aircraft.

No.

Newps

February 22nd 06, 03:07 PM

TRUTH wrote:

>
>
>
> On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
> cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?

Problem is there wasn't a cloud in the sky that day, therefore they
weren't flying blind.

Newps

February 22nd 06, 03:13 PM

TRUTH wrote:

>
>
> The point is that the article's author says that pilots use their
> instruments when flying at that high altitude.

He's blurring the lines. Above 18,000 feet pilots are required to be on
an instrument flight plan. That may or may not require them to use
their instruments for navigation.

So if they're not
> instrument trained, aren't they really "flying blind"? (I know I would
> be:))

It is easy to teach a person to read a couple of instruments and get to
a certain place once you have already been placed in the air.

>
> The flight instructors said they couldn't fly.

Anybody can fly a plane once it's already in the air with minimal
instruction. The skill comes in taking off and landing.

That's been reported all
> over the news the past few years. And at least one of them couldn't even
> spell.

How is that even relavant?

How on earth could they pilot 757/767s? How is it realistic to
> think that they could?

You make it sound like brain surgery. Any dolt can fly a plane that's
already in the air.

>
>
> btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots?

Yep.

Are there any Aeronautical
> Engineers here who have the education and training to debunk the article
> scientifically?

You don't need an engineer. Anybody in the aviation industry reads that
and laughs.

Newps

February 22nd 06, 03:16 PM

TRUTH wrote:

>>
>
>
>
> But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
> Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?

It wasn't a precision manuver. He turned the airplane in a circle. Even
you could do that.

Dylan Smith

February 22nd 06, 03:50 PM

On 2006-02-22, Newps > wrote:
> TRUTH wrote:
>> But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
>> Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?
>
> It wasn't a precision manuver. He turned the airplane in a circle. Even
> you could do that.

Don't confuse him with the facts, his mind is made up!

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Chris Wells

February 22nd 06, 04:05 PM

Hey, let's talk about TWA 800 instead...

How could a 747 with most of its nose removed (and the accompanying rearward CG shift) maintain level flight and climb for 5000'? Where is the autopilot located in a 747?

khobar

February 22nd 06, 05:41 PM

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
> "khobar" > wrote in
> news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:
>
> >
> > "TRUTH" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Thank you for all the responses. It's nice to get other opinions.
> >> There's a few things that weren't commented on though.
> >>
> >
> > At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the established
> > facts as to what happened that day are completely consistent with what
> > the article claims. Oops.
> >
> > Paul Nixon
>
>
>
> The government's version of 9/11 is not established fact... not to those
> who can read between the lines :)

Obviously you are reading between the lines - literallly.

And I agree that the "Government's version" is not established fact - it's
merely consistent with established fact.

Paul Nixon

Chad Irby

February 22nd 06, 07:24 PM

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
> Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?

"Precision," in this case, means hitting the largest office building on
the planet, yet almost 100 yards short of his initial aim point (the
courtyard in the middle of the building)

Chad Irby

February 22nd 06, 07:28 PM

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> It was a 360 degree diving precision maneuver.

Not really. It was a 360 degree "hunt around until we find the target,
then almost miss, even though you can see it from dozens of miles away."

That's like calling running your car into a wall at 60 MPH a "precision
driving maneuver."

> Do you have qualifications to refute the aeronautical engineer who
> quote the article may I ask please?

So far, about half of the people who have been responding to this silly
bit of conspiracy theory have those qualifications, including private
pilots and ex-military fighter jocks.

Chad Irby

February 22nd 06, 07:29 PM

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Yes! And I shall have the last laugh. Believe me.

....while wearing the nice white coat with the long sleeves that buckle
in the back.

Jim Macklin

February 22nd 06, 07:30 PM

Level flight and climb are mutually excluded. But wings
level and climb is very possible. The weight of the node
section being gone would cause the rapid climb and there was
no roll input since the wings were attached.

Could it have been shot down by a missile? Or attacked by a
UFO? Or maybe it was hijacked? Sure those are very slight
possibilities, but the FBI and FAA seem to have put a pretty
good case for the fuel tank explosion theory.

"Chris Wells" >
wrote in message
...
|
| Hey, let's talk about TWA 800 instead...
|
| How could a 747 with most of its nose removed (and the
accompanying
| rearward CG shift) maintain level flight and climb for
5000'? Where is
| the autopilot located in a 747?
|
|
| --
| Chris Wells

george

February 22nd 06, 07:41 PM

Pooh Bear wrote:
> TRUTH wrote:
>
> > "khobar" > wrote in
> > news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:
> >
> > > At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the established
> > > facts as to what happened that day are completely consistent with what
> > > the article claims. Oops.
> > >
> > > Paul Nixon
> >
> > On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
> > cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?
>
> The pilot clearly *could* see the ground ( it was a lovely clear day ).
>
> There is no evidence AFAIK that the pilots couldn't use instruments either.
>
It was VFR and according to the flight training they'd have done some
IFR training!
TRUTH is just an apologist for the mad muslims who murdered nearly 3000
innocent people on 9/11

David Dyer-Bennet

February 22nd 06, 07:42 PM

Chad Irby > writes:

> In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
> > But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
> > Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?
>
> "Precision," in this case, means hitting the largest office building on
> the planet, yet almost 100 yards short of his initial aim point (the
> courtyard in the middle of the building)

Yeah, well, the Pentagon is a much harder target than the two towers
were; anywhere in a thousand feet roughly was a "good hit" on them.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

george

February 22nd 06, 07:50 PM

Jim Macklin wrote:
> One day at school, a fourth grade teacher ask the students
> what their daddy did for a living. All the kids said the
> usual stuff. Doctor, lawyer, butcher, car mechanic, banker,
> carpenter..... One little girl said her daddy was an exotic
> dancer in a gay bar. He took his clothes off and danced for
> men. If he was offered money, he'd even go home with the
> customers and have sex with them.
>
> The teacher was shocked and stopped the "lesson" and sent
> the other kids out to play. The teacher then asked the
> child if what was said was TRUE. The child said, "No, he is
> a blogger pushing the theory that 9/11 was a conspiracy by
> the US government and I was to embarrassed to say so.

To you sir, the ears and the tale
ROTFL

Jim Macklin

February 22nd 06, 08:08 PM

I got it in a slightly different form, but only a slight
change made it fit TRUTH.

Hope everybody enjoys the joke.

"george" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > One day at school, a fourth grade teacher ask the
students
| > what their daddy did for a living. All the kids said
the
| > usual stuff. Doctor, lawyer, butcher, car mechanic,
banker,
| > carpenter..... One little girl said her daddy was an
exotic
| > dancer in a gay bar. He took his clothes off and danced
for
| > men. If he was offered money, he'd even go home with
the
| > customers and have sex with them.
| >
| > The teacher was shocked and stopped the "lesson" and
sent
| > the other kids out to play. The teacher then asked the
| > child if what was said was TRUE. The child said, "No,
he is
| > a blogger pushing the theory that 9/11 was a conspiracy
by
| > the US government and I was to embarrassed to say so.
|
| To you sir, the ears and the tale
| ROTFL
|

Orval Fairbairn

February 22nd 06, 08:32 PM

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> "khobar" > wrote in
> news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:
>
> >
> > "TRUTH" > wrote in message
> >
> > "When flying "blind", I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a
> > highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data
> > intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly,
> > precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to
> > do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot
> > wouldn't have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight
> > under such conditions is referred to as "IFR", or Instrument Flight
> > Rules."
> >
> > At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the established
> > facts as to what happened that day are completely consistent with what
> > the article claims. Oops.
> >
> > Paul Nixon
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
> cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?

The day was "severe clear" all over the East Coast, with 100 miles
visibility, dumbass! Henc, no "flying blind", etc., etc.

Orval Fairbairn

February 22nd 06, 08:36 PM

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> >
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >> "khobar" > wrote in
> >> news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:
> >>
> >> > At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the
> >> > established facts as to what happened that day are completely
> >> > consistent with what the article claims. Oops.
> >> >
> >> > Paul Nixon
> >>
> >> On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
> >> cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?
> >
> > The pilot clearly *could* see the ground ( it was a lovely clear day
> > ).
> >
> > There is no evidence AFAIK that the pilots couldn't use instruments
> > either.
> >
> >
> > Graham
> >
> >
>
>
>
> The point is that the article's author says that pilots use their
> instruments when flying at that high altitude. So if they're not
> instrument trained, aren't they really "flying blind"? (I know I would
> be:))

The point is, dumbass, that the author doesn't know what in hell he is
writing about! End of story!

> The flight instructors said they couldn't fly. That's been reported all
> over the news the past few years. And at least one of them couldn't even
> spell. How on earth could they pilot 757/767s? How is it realistic to
> think that they could?

It doesn't take much talent to steer the plane, after all the hard work
of configuring the plane has been done. They didn't have to know ho to
operate the gear, flaps, etc. All they had to know was which direction
to fly and how to disconnect the autopilot.

> btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots? If so, are any of
> you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)? Are there any Aeronautical
> Engineers here who have the education and training to debunk the article
> scientifically?

Yes -- a "real pilot" since 1959. I have about fifty close friends who
either fly or have flown for the airlines and they all would say that
you are full of ****.

Johnny Bravo

February 22nd 06, 08:44 PM

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:09:03 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>Are you *qualified* to debunk the article, may I ask?

He's not debunking your article, he's already stated that pilots who cannot
see the ground are flying under IFR. What he is debunking is your theory that
the hijackers could not see the ground on a perfectly clear day.

Steve Hix

February 22nd 06, 08:53 PM

Johnny Bravo

February 22nd 06, 08:54 PM

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:51:33 -0000, Dylan Smith > wrote:

>On 2006-02-22, TRUTH > wrote:
>>> A turn as you described it is not a precision manoevre. It's a turn. The
>>> plane can practically fly that itself with that degree of precision with
>>> almost no pilot input.
>>
>> It was a 360 degree diving precision maneuver. Do you have qualifications
>> to refute the aeronautical engineer who quote the article may I ask please?
>
>Aeronautical engineers don't define precision flying any more than
>chickens define how eggs are cooked. Pilots define what is precision
>flying. A 360 degree descending flight path is something any student
>pilot can accomplish with a high degree of accuracy. I have done
>probably hundreds of these so-called 'precision maneuvers' myself. A 360
>degree descending turn is a *basic* manuever, regardless of what any
>aeronautical engineer might say, just as in a hard boiled egg is a basic
>way to cook an egg, no matter what a chicken might think.

As for a precision maneuver, how Ernst Udet about picking up a hankerchief
sitting on a runway, using a wingtip, to win a bet with Hollywood starlet Mary
Pickford. :)

Compared to that a 360 degree dive is a piece of cake.

Steve Hix

February 22nd 06, 09:00 PM

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
>
> >
> >> btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots? If so, are
> >> any of you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)? Are there any
> >> Aeronautical Engineers here who have the education and training to
> >> debunk the article scientifically?
> >
> > I have flown light aircraft. It's easier than you might think. It's
> > also not such a big deal to fly big jets when you simply just want to
> > crash them.
> >
> > Graham
> >
> >
>
>
> But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
> Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?

Translation: "I can't believe that a poorly-trained pilot could
*possibly* see that he was going to miss the tower unless he cranked the
aircraft hard *that* way."

Do you even know how to steer a bicycle?

Johnny Bravo

February 22nd 06, 09:08 PM

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:06:15 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>> "And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the
>> Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him."
>
>Have you seen a picture of the area from the air? Antbody could pick
>out the Pentagon.

Can you recognize this building?
http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/images/maps/dc/17_pentagon_before800.jpg

Picture taken from an altitude of 2,233,000 feet. <grin>

Jim Logajan

February 22nd 06, 10:38 PM

Johnny Bravo > wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:06:15 -0700, Newps > wrote:
>>Have you seen a picture of the area from the air? Antbody could pick
>>out the Pentagon.
>
> Can you recognize this building?
> http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/images/maps/dc/17_pentagon_bef
> ore800.jpg

Here's what it would look like from about ~20k feet:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=washington+dc&ll=38.871456,-77.056732&spn=0.049383,0.10849&t=k

Pretty distinctive even from that altitude.

Chad Irby

February 22nd 06, 10:48 PM

"Striker, listen, and you listen close: flying a plane is no different
than riding a bicycle, just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the
spokes."

TRUTH

February 22nd 06, 11:58 PM

The conclusion I draw from your comment is that many people are too
embarrassed to admit possible government involvement in 9/11, so they
refuse to thing it, reagrdless of overwhelming evidence.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
news:dWXKf.103371$4l5.28726@dukeread05:

> One day at school, a fourth grade teacher ask the students
> what their daddy did for a living. All the kids said the
> usual stuff. Doctor, lawyer, butcher, car mechanic, banker,
> carpenter..... One little girl said her daddy was an exotic
> dancer in a gay bar. He took his clothes off and danced for
> men. If he was offered money, he'd even go home with the
> customers and have sex with them.
>
> The teacher was shocked and stopped the "lesson" and sent
> the other kids out to play. The teacher then asked the
> child if what was said was TRUE. The child said, "No, he is
> a blogger pushing the theory that 9/11 was a conspiracy by
> the US government and I was to embarrassed to say so.
>
>
> "TRUTH" > wrote in message
> ...
>| Thomas Borchert > wrote in
>| :
>|
>| > Truth,
>| >
>| >> The consensus of the 9/11 Truth
>| >> Movement
>| >>
>| >
>| > Ah, the 9/11 Truth Movement! Thanks for giving me the
> laugh of the day.
>| >
>|
>|
>|
>| Yes! And I shall have the last laugh. Believe me.
>
>

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 12:26 AM

"khobar" > wrote in
news:vm1Lf.4220$Sp2.802@fed1read02:

> "TRUTH" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "khobar" > wrote in
>> news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:
>>
>> >
>> > "TRUTH" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Thank you for all the responses. It's nice to get other opinions.
>> >> There's a few things that weren't commented on though.
>> >>
>> >
>> > At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the
>> > established facts as to what happened that day are completely
>> > consistent with what the article claims. Oops.
>> >
>> > Paul Nixon
>>
>>
>>
>> The government's version of 9/11 is not established fact... not to
>> those who can read between the lines :)
>
> Obviously you are reading between the lines - literallly.
>
> And I agree that the "Government's version" is not established fact -
> it's merely consistent with established fact.
>
> Paul Nixon
>
>
>

Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit the
Pentagon.

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 12:28 AM

Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-B20A82.14274422022006
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:

> In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
>> It was a 360 degree diving precision maneuver.
>
> Not really. It was a 360 degree "hunt around until we find the target,
> then almost miss, even though you can see it from dozens of miles
away."
>
> That's like calling running your car into a wall at 60 MPH a "precision
> driving maneuver."
>
>> Do you have qualifications to refute the aeronautical engineer who
>> quote the article may I ask please?
>
> So far, about half of the people who have been responding to this silly
> bit of conspiracy theory have those qualifications, including private
> pilots and ex-military fighter jocks.
>

The government's version is a conspiracy theory, since there's no
evidence to back it up. Therefore anyone believing the government's
version is a conspiracy theorist. You think there's evidence? Prove it

Jim Logajan

February 23rd 06, 12:55 AM

TRUTH > wrote:
> Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit the
> Pentagon.

Photos and facts as presented by snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Newps

February 23rd 06, 01:38 AM

TRUTH wrote:

>
> Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit the
> Pentagon.

I guess airliner parts laying on the lawn don't count.

Chad Irby

February 23rd 06, 01:41 AM

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> See here:
>
> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm

Ah, the "I can't see the obvious debris field because I can't figure out
how big that frigging' building is" guy. He thinks that landing gear
"automatically" lowers when the plane gets near the ground, to boot.

He says such things as "CAN YOU SEE A PLANE IN THIS PHOTO?" while
showing a shot from days later, after the debris has been removed.

> http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

....and with a domain name like that, how can you *not* trust their
analyses?

> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays

Nice of them to collect the crazy people for us.

> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com

whatweseewhenourmedsdontwork.com

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 01:50 AM

Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-BB5A1E.20411922022006
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:

> In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
>> See here:
>>
>> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm
>
> Ah, the "I can't see the obvious debris field because I can't figure
out
> how big that frigging' building is" guy. He thinks that landing gear
> "automatically" lowers when the plane gets near the ground, to boot.
>
> He says such things as "CAN YOU SEE A PLANE IN THIS PHOTO?" while
> showing a shot from days later, after the debris has been removed.
>
>> http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html
>
> ...and with a domain name like that, how can you *not* trust their
> analyses?
>
>> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays
>
> Nice of them to collect the crazy people for us.
>
>> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
>
> whatweseewhenourmedsdontwork.com
>

Well, if you're not smart enough to understand what's in those sites,
then it's obivous what version you're going to take: the absurd factless
version

Jim Logajan

February 23rd 06, 02:08 AM

TRUTH > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> :
>
>> TRUTH > wrote:
>>> Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit
>>> the Pentagon.
>>
>> Photos and facts as presented by snopes:
>>
>> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
>
> See here:
>
> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm

Here's an excellent FE analysis that replicates the impact and
demonstrates why the damage appears the way it does:

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

The apfn link you list contains only speculations, while the Purdue
analysis pretty nicely replicates the resulting damage. FE analysis
pretty much trumps uninformed speculation every day of the week.

> http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

Looks like a series of talking points rather than a sincere effort at
objective analysis. Is there a point in that link you think contradicts
the FE analysis?

> www.911truth.org
> www.911busters.com
> www.911review.com
> www.911proof.com
> www.911truthseekers.org
> www.911blimp.net
> www.911blogger.com
>
>
> just to name a few

The number of adherents to a beliefe is irrelevant to its authenticity,
as I'm sure you'd agree. Arguments do not gain validity if they are
repeated often enough. Make your point once - please do not make people
read the same points over and over, as if that somehow adds validity to
your arguments.

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 02:20 AM

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> TRUTH > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> TRUTH > wrote:
>>>> Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit
>>>> the Pentagon.
>>>
>>> Photos and facts as presented by snopes:
>>>
>>> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
>>
>> See here:
>>
>> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm
>
> Here's an excellent FE analysis that replicates the impact and
> demonstrates why the damage appears the way it does:
>
> http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
>
> The apfn link you list contains only speculations, while the Purdue
> analysis pretty nicely replicates the resulting damage. FE analysis
> pretty much trumps uninformed speculation every day of the week.
>
>> http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html
>
> Looks like a series of talking points rather than a sincere effort at
> objective analysis. Is there a point in that link you think contradicts
> the FE analysis?
>
>> www.911truth.org
>> www.911busters.com
>> www.911review.com
>> www.911proof.com
>> www.911truthseekers.org
>> www.911blimp.net
>> www.911blogger.com
>>
>>
>> just to name a few
>
> The number of adherents to a beliefe is irrelevant to its authenticity,
> as I'm sure you'd agree. Arguments do not gain validity if they are
> repeated often enough. Make your point once - please do not make people
> read the same points over and over, as if that somehow adds validity to
> your arguments.
>

My point has been made already. The information in all those websites
shows very clearly: 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government to
building public support to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

Jim Logajan

February 23rd 06, 02:55 AM

TRUTH > wrote:
> My point has been made already. The information in all those websites
> shows very clearly: 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government to
> building public support to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

I want you to explain to me why the FE analysis is flawed. If it isn't, all
your speculations are invalid. Replicating speculations is unscientific. I
know how to do finite element analysis - I expect you to deal with the
science you claim backs your assertion.

Now put up or stop cross posting stuff scientifically proven to be false.

Chad Irby

February 23rd 06, 03:00 AM

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
> > Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit the
> > Pentagon.
>
> I guess airliner parts laying on the lawn don't count.

....and hundreds of witnesses (the plane flew over a very busy highway).

Not to mention the bodies.

And not to mention that the people who did it *took credit for the act*.

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 03:26 AM

Chad Irby > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
>> Well, if you're not smart enough to understand what's in those sites,
>> then it's obivous what version you're going to take: the absurd
>> factless version
>
> I note that you couldn't manage to come up with any answers for
> anything anyone says, other than to dredge up Yet Another Crazy Expert
> who manages to miss the obvious.
>

Where is the evidence showing the government's version?

Note: basic scientific laws CANNOT be changed

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 03:27 AM

Chad Irby > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>> > Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit
>> > the Pentagon.
>>
>> I guess airliner parts laying on the lawn don't count.
>
> ...and hundreds of witnesses (the plane flew over a very busy
> highway).
>
> Not to mention the bodies.
>
> And not to mention that the people who did it *took credit for the
> act*.
>

What you said is not factual. If you think it is, prove it. Show me the
evidence.

Pooh Bear

February 23rd 06, 04:21 AM

TRUTH wrote:

> The conclusion I draw from your comment is that many people are too
> embarrassed to admit possible government involvement in 9/11, so they
> refuse to thing it, reagrdless of overwhelming evidence.

The conclusion I draw is that you're unable to face the *actual truth*
for whatever half-assed reason you might have.

Graham

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 04:24 AM

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> The conclusion I draw from your comment is that many people are too
>> embarrassed to admit possible government involvement in 9/11, so they
>> refuse to thing it, reagrdless of overwhelming evidence.
>
> The conclusion I draw is that you're unable to face the *actual truth*
> for whatever half-assed reason you might have.
>
> Graham
>
>

Okay, where is the evidence? Show it, and be specific.

Pooh Bear

February 23rd 06, 04:24 AM

TRUTH wrote:

> Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit the
> Pentagon.

Not much point if you simply deny them which is frankly the only 'argument'
you have.

You can't construct a meaningful case by simply dismissing all the actual
evidence out of hand - unless you're a complete loony of course.

Graham

Pooh Bear

February 23rd 06, 04:30 AM

TRUTH wrote:

> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> :
>
> > TRUTH > wrote:
> >> Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit
> the
> >> Pentagon.
> >
> > Photos and facts as presented by snopes:
> >
> > http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
>
> See here:
>
> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm
>
> http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
>
> also,
>
> www.911truth.org
> www.911busters.com
> www.911review.com
> www.911proof.com
> www.911truthseekers.org
> www.911blimp.net
> www.911blogger.com
>
> just to name a few

The difference is that Snopes is credible.

The kook sites aren't.

Graham

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 04:30 AM

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit
>> the Pentagon.
>
> Not much point if you simply deny them which is frankly the only
> 'argument' you have.
>
> You can't construct a meaningful case by simply dismissing all the
> actual evidence out of hand - unless you're a complete loony of
> course.
>
> Graham
>
>
>

ha, that's a poor attempt to prove the kooky government verison correct.

You can't provide the proof because there is no proof. And there is
PLENTY proof showing otherwise.

Do you really wish to take the side of looney wackos who believe a
proofless verison? You think there is proof? Okay, where? Where is it?

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 04:32 AM

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > TRUTH > wrote:
>> >> Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit
>> the
>> >> Pentagon.
>> >
>> > Photos and facts as presented by snopes:
>> >
>> > http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
>>
>> See here:
>>
>> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm
>>
>> http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html
>>
>> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays
>>
>> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
>>
>> also,
>>
>> www.911truth.org
>> www.911busters.com
>> www.911review.com
>> www.911proof.com
>> www.911truthseekers.org
>> www.911blimp.net
>> www.911blogger.com
>>
>> just to name a few
>
> The difference is that Snopes is credible.
>
> The kook sites aren't.
>
> Graham
>
>
>

Calling them kook sites shows a predetermination on your part to believe
the governments version. Do you also believe in Martians?

Pooh Bear

February 23rd 06, 04:36 AM

TRUTH wrote:

> I am not a scientist..........But I can use science to disprove the absurd
> government version

It is painnfully clear that science is way over your head.

You couldn't 'scientifically' find your way out of a brown paper bag.

Graham

Pooh Bear

February 23rd 06, 04:38 AM

TRUTH wrote:

> Note: basic scientific laws CANNOT be changed

And you just admiited you don't understand science. You simply don't have
the first clue about real scientific analysis. You seem to prefer wildly
inaccurate 'folk lore' ideas.

Graham

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 04:52 AM

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> I am not a scientist..........But I can use science to disprove the
>> absurd government version
>
> It is painnfully clear that science is way over your head.
>
> You couldn't 'scientifically' find your way out of a brown paper bag.
>
> Graham
>
>
>

You're making an idiot out of yourself. You have provided no proof.

An anyone who thinks a 757 can vaporize into nothingness must have a
paper bag over their head.

That snopes article is ridiculous. You should use rational thinking and
you'll understand.

This picture is most ridiculous of all:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg

That's all there is from a 757? The whole plane vaporized and that small
piece wastn't even scorched?

Where is the **video evidence** that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon? The
government released a measly five frames of very poor quality video
showing "something". Whatever it was was not a 757. Why did the FBI
confiscate video tape from a gas station across the street? Perhaps
because it would show what reeeeeeeeealy hit the Pentagon?

Why did air traffic controllers say that they could not believe that what
they saw was a 757. Perhaps because it wasn't?

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 04:53 AM

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> Note: basic scientific laws CANNOT be changed
>
> And you just admiited you don't understand science. You simply don't have
> the first clue about real scientific analysis. You seem to prefer wildly
> inaccurate 'folk lore' ideas.
>
> Graham
>
>

Liar. I never said I don't understand science.,

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 04:54 AM

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> You can't provide the proof because there is no proof.
>
> And you sir are a nothing more than a denialist.
>
> Graham
>

Someday you'll wake up. My job with you is done

Jim Logajan

February 23rd 06, 04:54 AM

TRUTH > wrote:

> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> :
>
>> TRUTH > wrote:
>>> My point has been made already. The information in all those
>>> websites shows very clearly: 9/11 was orchestrated by the US
>>> government to building public support to invade Afghanistan and
>>> Iraq.
>>
>> I want you to explain to me why the FE analysis is flawed. If it
>> isn't, all your speculations are invalid. Replicating speculations is
>> unscientific. I know how to do finite element analysis - I expect you
>> to deal with the science you claim backs your assertion.
>>
>> Now put up or stop cross posting stuff scientifically proven to be
>> false.
>
> Okay, First explain the term "FE". I am not a scientist, an engineer,
> or a pilot. But I can use science to disprove the absurd government
> version

FE = Finite element. Wikipedia appears to have a good intro:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_method

The Purdue study I posted earlier utiliized FE code to simulate the
Pentagon collision. I've written some simple 2-dimensional FE code myself.
The only book I have on the subject on my bookshelf though is "An
Introduction to the Finite Element Method" by J. N. Reddy. So I'm vaguely
familiar with the subject.

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 04:54 AM

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> Pooh Bear > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > TRUTH wrote:
>> >
>> >> The conclusion I draw from your comment is that many people are
>> >> too embarrassed to admit possible government involvement in 9/11,
>> >> so they refuse to thing it, reagrdless of overwhelming evidence.
>> >
>> > The conclusion I draw is that you're unable to face the *actual
>> > truth* for whatever half-assed reason you might have.
>> >
>> > Graham
>>
>> Okay, where is the evidence? Show it, and be specific.
>
> The evidence is in front of your damn nose.
>
> You simply choose to ignore it and instead substitute pure speculation
> based on ignorance.
>
> Graham
>
>

ha ha ha ha ha

Jim Logajan

February 23rd 06, 05:01 AM

TRUTH > wrote:
> Chad Irby > wrote in
> :
>> Not to mention the bodies.
>>
>> And not to mention that the people who did it *took credit for the
>> act*.
>
> What you said is not factual. If you think it is, prove it. Show me the
> evidence.

Here's a list of everyone on AA flight 77 - full names, ages, and where
they are from. Easy enough to locate their relatives, if you dare:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

Chad Irby

February 23rd 06, 05:07 AM

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Where is the evidence showing the government's version?

Aside from the video tapes, the massive piles of physical evidence, and
the fact that the guys behind the attacks TOOK CREDIT for them?

Chad Irby

February 23rd 06, 05:09 AM

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> What you said is not factual.

Over the last few years, I've met more than a few people who were either
witnesses to the attacks or who helped reconstruct the whole thing.

On the other hand, you (the crazy person) have a few Web sites written
by other crazy people, and one "scientific" paper that you yourself
admit wasn't even peer reviewed (after falsely claiming that it was).

Chad Irby

February 23rd 06, 05:12 AM

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Okay, First explain the term "FE". I am not a scientist, an engineer, or a
> pilot. But I can use science to disprove the absurd government version

So your whole point is that, even though you have sparse background or
knowledge of science (and from your posts, what little you claim to know
is false), you can tell us that it's false, because, er...

Pooh Bear

February 23rd 06, 05:13 AM

TRUTH wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >> Note: basic scientific laws CANNOT be changed
> >
> > And you just admiited you don't understand science. You simply don't have
> > the first clue about real scientific analysis. You seem to prefer wildly
> > inaccurate 'folk lore' ideas.
> >
> > Graham
>
>
> Liar. I never said I don't understand science.,

Subject:
Re: Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible
Date:
Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:25:03 GMT
From:
TRUTH >
Newsgroups:
rec.travel.air, alt.disasters.aviation, rec.aviation.piloting,
rec.aviation.military
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13

< Snip John Logajan's post >

Okay, First explain the term "FE". I am not a scientist, an engineer, or a
pilot. But I can use science to disprove the absurd government version

************************************************** *****
From:
TRUTH >

" I am not a scientist, an engineer, or a pilot "

************************************************** *****

It has to be said it's painfully obvious you aren't.

Graham

Pooh Bear

February 23rd 06, 05:15 AM

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 05:56 AM

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> Pooh Bear > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > TRUTH wrote:
>> >
>> >> Note: basic scientific laws CANNOT be changed
>> >
>> > And you just admiited you don't understand science. You simply
>> > don't have the first clue about real scientific analysis. You seem
>> > to prefer wildly inaccurate 'folk lore' ideas.
>> >
>> > Graham
>>
>> Liar. I never said I don't understand science.,
>
> Your skimpy 'folksy' concept of science is a classic case of a little
> knowledge being the proverbial dangerous thing.
>
> Graham
>
>
>

Either you're going to wake up and face reality, or you're not. It's your
choice

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 06:06 AM

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> TRUTH > wrote:
>> Chad Irby > wrote in
>> :
>>> Not to mention the bodies.
>>>
>>> And not to mention that the people who did it *took credit for the
>>> act*.
>>
>> What you said is not factual. If you think it is, prove it. Show me
the
>> evidence.
>
> Here's a list of everyone on AA flight 77 - full names, ages, and where
> they are from. Easy enough to locate their relatives, if you dare:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
>

That's all okay, but doesn't prove that flight 77 crashed into the
Pentagan.

Try to look into the other information when you get some time.

btw, are you aware that many of those in the Truth Movement are
relatives?

Also, the only reason that there was a 9/11 Commission in the first place
was because of public demand from victims' relatives.

The Director of the Commission was Philip Zelikow. He was in charge of
what information got in the report. Zelikow has direct ties to the Bush
administration. He worked in the Bush I adminstration too, and co wrote a
book with Condelezza Rice during the Clinton presidency.

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 06:11 AM

Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-CFA064.00065123022006
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:

> In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
>> Where is the evidence showing the government's version?
>
> Aside from the video tapes, the massive piles of physical evidence, and
> the fact that the guys behind the attacks TOOK CREDIT for them?
>

Huh??? Where are the videos that prove the government's version? Where's
the physical evidence showing the government's version? Take the time,
search some news sites and try to find some. Believe me, there is none.
It's pure fabrication and speculation.

If you think bin Laden admitted, please read here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

Take the time to read the page instead of jumping to conclusions

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 06:13 AM

Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-380196.00091223022006
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:

> In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
>> What you said is not factual.
>
> Over the last few years, I've met more than a few people who were either
> witnesses to the attacks or who helped reconstruct the whole thing.
>
> On the other hand, you (the crazy person) have a few Web sites written
> by other crazy people, and one "scientific" paper that you yourself
> admit wasn't even peer reviewed (after falsely claiming that it was).
>

Read Dr Jones paper and show why his facts do not apply:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

You have a brain? Use it

Pooh Bear

February 23rd 06, 06:25 AM

TRUTH wrote:

> btw, are you aware that many of those in the Truth Movement are
> relatives?

What exactly is the relevance of that ?

Graham

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 07:01 AM

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> btw, are you aware that many of those in the Truth Movement are
>> relatives?
>
> What exactly is the relevance of that ?
>
> Graham
>
>

none really, I was just commenting on your comment

Vee-One

February 23rd 06, 09:15 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Striker, listen, and you listen close: flying a plane is no different
> than riding a bicycle, just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the
> spokes."

"Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with a red stripes, curtains at the
windows, wheels, and it just looks like a big Tylenol. "

B a r r y

February 23rd 06, 12:24 PM

Chad Irby wrote:
> He thinks that landing gear
> "automatically" lowers when the plane gets near the ground, to boot.

American Airlines doesn't fly old Piper Arrows?

Johnny Bravo

February 23rd 06, 01:31 PM

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:28:07 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>The government's version is a conspiracy theory, since there's no
>evidence to back it up. Therefore anyone believing the government's
>version is a conspiracy theorist. You think there's evidence? Prove it

We all think your tinfoil hat is on too tight and has cut off circulation to
your brain. We don't really care if you ever accept reality. You're here to
convince us, not the other way around.

Matt Barrow

February 23rd 06, 01:43 PM

A psychotic goof ball posts drivel and fifty people give him what he wants!

And we wonder why Usenet is such a mess!!

Johnny Bravo

February 23rd 06, 01:49 PM

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:13:52 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-380196.00091223022006
:
>
>> In article >,
>> TRUTH > wrote:
>>
>>> What you said is not factual.
>>
>> Over the last few years, I've met more than a few people who were either
>> witnesses to the attacks or who helped reconstruct the whole thing.
>>
>> On the other hand, you (the crazy person) have a few Web sites written
>> by other crazy people, and one "scientific" paper that you yourself
>> admit wasn't even peer reviewed (after falsely claiming that it was).
>>
>
>
>Read Dr Jones paper and show why his facts do not apply:
>http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Dr Jones isn't a structural engineer, he isn't a civil engineer; he's a
researcher in alterative energy sources. You demand qualifications from us but
ignore Dr. Jones' lack of qualifications and at the same time handwave away
statements from his own boss and the civil engineering department at his own
college.

The BYU physics department has issued a statement: "The university is
aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence
regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a
number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty
members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not
convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant
scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

The chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr.
Miller, is on record stating "I think without exception, the structural
engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims
made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity
to these claims."

Dan Luke

February 23rd 06, 02:17 PM

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>> You can't provide the proof because there is no proof.
>>
>> And you sir are a nothing more than a denialist.
>>
>> Graham
>>
>
>
>
> Someday you'll wake up. My job with you is done

Indeed.

You have finally convinced him and everyone else reading this thread that you
are a delusional moron. You may go now.

'Bye.

mrtravel

February 23rd 06, 02:32 PM

Johnny Bravo wrote:

> As for a precision maneuver, how Ernst Udet about picking up a hankerchief
> sitting on a runway, using a wingtip, to win a bet with Hollywood starlet Mary
> Pickford. :)
>
> Compared to that a 360 degree dive is a piece of cake.

I would bet that he was a better pilot than Snoopy's nemisis, even
though Manfred was credited with more kills.

mrtravel

February 23rd 06, 02:37 PM

TRUTH wrote:
>
> Did a 757 actually "vaporize into nothingness"? And if it did, what was
> wreckage from a military aircraft doing there?
>
> How did a 757 crash into the FIRST FLOOR of the Pentagon without
> scorching the green lawn?

So, assuming it was a different aircraft, why didn't it scorch the green
lawn? Now you are suggesting that people didn't really see a plane crash?

Dan Luke

February 23rd 06, 02:41 PM

"TRUTH" wrote:

in message ...
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "TRUTH" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Pooh Bear > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You can't provide the proof because there is no proof.
>>>>
>>>> And you sir are a nothing more than a denialist.
>>>>
>>>> Graham
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Someday you'll wake up. My job with you is done
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> You have finally convinced him and everyone else reading this thread
>> that you are a delusional moron. You may go now.
>>
>> 'Bye.
>>
>
>
>
> And you are biggest asshole believing bin Laden did this from his cave.
>
> You believe in proofless things! YOU'RE the moron, ****head! Go back to
> la-la-land you stupid dope

I see I've got you foaming at the mouth. Now MY job is done.

By the way: are you ever going to answer Campbell's question about why 100%
of the pilots in these groups think your "aeronautical expert" is full of
****?

mrtravel

February 23rd 06, 02:47 PM

Pooh Bear wrote:

>
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>
>>I am not a scientist..........But I can use science to disprove the absurd
>>government version
>
>
> It is painnfully clear that science is way over your head.
>
> You couldn't 'scientifically' find your way out of a brown paper bag.
>
> Graham
>
>

He would deny there is any evidence there is even a bag.

mrtravel

February 23rd 06, 02:51 PM

venom wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>"Striker, listen, and you listen close: flying a plane is no different
>>than riding a bicycle, just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the
>>spokes."
>
>
> "Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with a red stripes, curtains at the
> windows, wheels, and it just looks like a big Tylenol. "
>

Was it in Radar range? Or was it in a RadarRange by Amana?

What can you make out of this?

Dan Luke

February 23rd 06, 03:25 PM

"TRUTH" wrote:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in

>>
>> By the way: are you ever going to answer Campbell's question about why
>> 100% of the pilots in these groups think your "aeronautical expert" is
>> full of ****?
>>
>
>
> Certainly I will answer it. 9/11 was such a terrible event, that thinking
> our government was involved is very difficult. Most people therefore will
> not think rationally when it comes to evidence. Most people will take the
> government's side, even without evidence. They will even think that
> evidence exists when it does not. They will do anything and everything in
> their power to deny what happened.
>
> I will admit that I'm much more familiar with the WTC attacks than the
> Pentagon. And I am no pilot. But I am a clear thinker,...

Ok, now you're making me laugh.

> ...which obviously you are not.
>
> Face it. 9/11 was an inside job. More and more money has been pouring
> into the cause. More and more radio spots, more TV ads, more newspaper
> coverage. Sooner or later, major newspapers will report it. The Movement
> is expanding rapidly. Continued denial is not going to help

I see: 100% of a group of real experts on a subject think that your claims
are nonsense, yet you dismiss them with a wave of your hand. And it is
*they* who are in denial?

You are a crazy person--and not a very bright one.

Thomas Borchert

February 23rd 06, 04:00 PM

Matt,

> A psychotic goof ball posts drivel and fifty people give him what he wants!
>

You know, you have a point there. OTOH, it's just so much fun jerking the
chain...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

February 23rd 06, 04:00 PM

Truth,

> I will admit that I'm much more familiar with the WTC attacks than the
> Pentagon.
>

You'll admit that? How gracious!

You're beyond help...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

TRUTH

February 23rd 06, 04:12 PM

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Truth,
>
>> I will admit that I'm much more familiar with the WTC attacks than the
>> Pentagon.
>>
>
> You'll admit that? How gracious!
>
> You're beyond help...
>

And you're a CNN/FOX corporate news brainwashed ignoramous

BDS

February 23rd 06, 04:55 PM

"TRUTH" > wrote

> Certainly I will answer it. 9/11 was such a terrible event, that thinking
> our government was involved is very difficult.

It isn't difficult, it is illogical.

> government's side, even without evidence. They will even think that
> evidence exists when it does not.

Your "evidence" amounts to nothing more than some opinions from questionable
sources.

> Face it. 9/11 was an inside job.

Nothing you have said here proves that. Come back with some real proof and
you may succeed in changing what people think. Opinions are still opinions,
regardless of how many times they are repeated.

Is what you claim possible? - maybe. Is it probable or logical? - no.

khobar

February 23rd 06, 06:22 PM

"Johnny Bravo" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:28:07 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>
> >The government's version is a conspiracy theory, since there's no
> >evidence to back it up. Therefore anyone believing the government's
> >version is a conspiracy theorist. You think there's evidence? Prove it
>
> We all think your tinfoil hat is on too tight and has cut off
circulation to
> your brain. We don't really care if you ever accept reality. You're here
to
> convince us, not the other way around.

Now, now, you've insulted him and now he's going to say bad things to you.

Paul Nixon

khobar

February 23rd 06, 06:34 PM

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> > TRUTH wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Note: basic scientific laws CANNOT be changed
> >> >
> >> > And you just admiited you don't understand science. You simply
> >> > don't have the first clue about real scientific analysis. You seem
> >> > to prefer wildly inaccurate 'folk lore' ideas.
> >> >
> >> > Graham
> >>
> >> Liar. I never said I don't understand science.,
> >
> > Your skimpy 'folksy' concept of science is a classic case of a little
> > knowledge being the proverbial dangerous thing.
> >
> > Graham
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Either you're going to wake up and face reality, or you're not. It's your
> choice

I've said it before and I'm saying it again. You really should actually read
what the sites you link to say. From YOUR cite
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html "
The Pentagon attack:
the "no plane" theories discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from proven
evidence of complicity

a.. there is zero evidence for any of the "no plane" claims - hundreds of
people saw the plane, none saw a cruise missile, Global Hawk robot plane,
smaller plane or flying saucer piloted by giant lizards
b.. the physical evidence shows that a large twin engine jet hit the
nearly empty part of the Pentagon, the "Black Boxes" were found, cleanup
crews found remains of the passengers, the "hole was too small" claim was a
hoax.
Stunning, absolutely stunning.

Paul Nixon

Orval Fairbairn

February 23rd 06, 06:46 PM

In article >,
TRUTH > bloviated:

>
> Certainly I will answer it. 9/11 was such a terrible event, that thinking
> our government was involved is very difficult. Most people therefore will
> not think rationally when it comes to evidence. Most people will take the
> government's side, even without evidence. They will even think that
> evidence exists when it does not. They will do anything and everything in
> their power to deny what happened.

"TRUTH" does not think -- rationally or otherwise.

> I will admit that I'm much more familiar with the WTC attacks than the
> Pentagon. And I am no pilot. But I am a clear thinker, which obviously
> you are not.

He is a "clear thinker" (in his own mind).

Perhaps he is misspelling "thinker"?

> Face it. 9/11 was an inside job. More and more money has been pouring
> into the cause. More and more radio spots, more TV ads, more newspaper
> coverage. Sooner or later, major newspapers will report it. The Movement
> is expanding rapidly. Continued denial is not going to help

Remember, "TRUTH": Continued denial is not going to help.

Johnny Bravo

February 23rd 06, 07:26 PM

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:32:50 GMT, mrtravel > wrote:

>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>
>> As for a precision maneuver, how about Ernst Udet about picking up a hankerchief
>> sitting on a runway, using a wingtip, to win a bet with Hollywood starlet Mary
>> Pickford. :)
>>
>> Compared to that a 360 degree dive is a piece of cake.
>
>I would bet that he was a better pilot than Snoopy's nemisis, even
>though Manfred was credited with more kills.

Udet's story is a pretty facinating read, that guy had the devil's own luck
during WWI. He started out as a pilot for an artillery observer. He went above
and beyond the call of duty to save a defective plane (at one point the observer
was out on the wing to counterbalance the spin the plane was undergoing),
winning him the Iron Cross.

On a later bombing mission he crashed just after takeoff after banking left,
earning him 7 days in the brig for careless maneuvering. On his next mission
that same careless maneuvering saved his plane when a live bomb got hung up
underneath him and he shook it free. When he got back he was transferred to a
fighter squadron and given a brand new Fokker which crashed on takeoff due to a
mechanical defect.

In his first encounter with the enemy, he froze and couldn't fire. Return
fire from his intended target actually shot his goggles off, cutting his face
with glass splinters. Determined to make up for his private failure he ended up
going solo against 20 French bombers. He nailed one on his first pass and dove
down as others chased him. Shortly afterwards several more German planes
arrived and attacked. Udet went after a damaged bomber that had been seperated
from the formation and damaged it further, but couldn't shoot it down because
his guns jammed.

On May 25th Udet ran into Georges Guynemer (who died in Sep 1917 with 53 kills
and had 45 at the time of this encounter), they sparred for a while but neither
one could press home a decisive advantage. Udet's guns jammed and in a rare
moment of chivalry (rare for that late in the war), Guynemer waved to Udet and
flew off.

Richthofen invited Udet to join Jagdgeschwader 1 less than a month before
Richthofen was killed. Udet arrived at 10am and flew his first mission with
Richthofen at noon, shooting down an observation plane during a head on pass.
After a fight with a few Sopwith Camels, Richthofen got one, and a few strafing
runs on the trenches they returned to the field where Udet was immediately given
command of Jasta 11, one quarter of Richthofen's group.

In May 1918 he got a little careless and got shot down by the gunner of an
observation plane. When he bailed out, his chute got tangled in the tail of his
plane, but he got it free and landed without injury in no-man's land. By
nightfall he was safely behind his own lines.

In a later fight with a couple of Sopwith Camels he actually hit one of them
with his own plane. Udet was unscathed, his opponent suffered enough damage to
his upper wing to bring down the plane. Udet later visited the pilot in the
hospital.

When the war ended, fighter pilots weren't exactly in high demand. He
traveled to North and South America where he participated in air shows, and flew
camera planes for some of the more exotic Hollywood pictures shot in Africa.

Johnny Bravo

February 23rd 06, 07:29 PM

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:03:49 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>Face it. 9/11 was an inside job. More and more money has been pouring
>into the cause. More and more radio spots, more TV ads, more newspaper
>coverage. Sooner or later, major newspapers will report it. The Movement
>is expanding rapidly. Continued denial is not going to help

Expanding so rapidly that there are literaly *dozens* of supporters all over
the world.

There were more people on the plane you say didn't hit the Pentagon than
believe your silly theory.

Jens Krueger

February 23rd 06, 10:08 PM

Newps > wrote:

> > According to the article, the alledged hijackers would have had to be
> > trained instrument pilots,
>
> No.

They were actually certificated Commercial Pilots with Instrument
Ratings plus they took lessons in
>
>
> and thoroughly familiar with the 757/767 six
> > large screen LCD display in order to pilot the aircraft.
>
> No.

--
This signature now under new management!
Reply-to address new and improved! And Valid.

Newps

February 23rd 06, 11:09 PM

Jens Krueger wrote:
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>>According to the article, the alledged hijackers would have had to be
>>>trained instrument pilots,
>>
>>No.
>
>
> They were actually certificated Commercial Pilots with Instrument
> Ratings plus they took lessons in

Whatever. The point is they didn't have to be.

Chad Irby

February 24th 06, 12:39 AM

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Read Dr Jones paper and show why his facts do not apply:

Why should I? You won't understand the answers. Hell, you don't even
know why he thinks he's right, and you won't pay attention to the folks
who already analyzed it (the rest of the people in his department).

Here's the first clue, though: he bases his entire argument on the idea
that jet fuel won't melt steel, while mostly glossing over the fact that
you don't need to melt steel or even get it close to its melting temp
before you lose most of its strength.

A second clue: the "squibs" he talks about were the structural steel
pieces breaking loose. Anyone who's been around a structure collapse
knows exactly what this looks like.

The basic issue with this looney's entire thesis is that he doesn't have
a clue about how structures fail. This is info you can get readily, if
you do *real* research. He did not. I guess the UFO hunts and
cold-fusion experiments he's been doing have weakened his skills...

> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Jim Logajan

February 24th 06, 12:43 AM

Pooh Bear > wrote:
> < Snip John Logajan's post >

Darn! There goes my 15 minutes of fame - they got my name wrong!

<Shakes fist at sky>

Pooh Bear

February 24th 06, 03:55 AM

Johnny Bravo wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:13:52 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>
> >Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-380196.00091223022006
> :
> >
> >> In article >,
> >> TRUTH > wrote:
> >>
> >>> What you said is not factual.
> >>
> >> Over the last few years, I've met more than a few people who were either
> >> witnesses to the attacks or who helped reconstruct the whole thing.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, you (the crazy person) have a few Web sites written
> >> by other crazy people, and one "scientific" paper that you yourself
> >> admit wasn't even peer reviewed (after falsely claiming that it was).
> >>
> >
> >
> >Read Dr Jones paper and show why his facts do not apply:
> >http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>
> Dr Jones isn't a structural engineer, he isn't a civil engineer; he's a
> researcher in alterative energy sources. You demand qualifications from us but
> ignore Dr. Jones' lack of qualifications and at the same time handwave away
> statements from his own boss and the civil engineering department at his own
> college.
>
> The BYU physics department has issued a statement: "The university is
> aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence
> regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a
> number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty
> members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not
> convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant
> scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
>
> The chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr.
> Miller, is on record stating "I think without exception, the structural
> engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims
> made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity
> to these claims."

This simply illustrates that the 'truth movement' are interested only in listening
to kooks. If you're qualified in any discipline then they don't want to hear what
you have to say.

Graham