Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
For all we know, Bush might have been speaking to the devil. Afterall
John Buchanan says (paraphrased):

"Bush does not take his philosophical foundation from the bible. Bush
gets his inspiration from what he learned in Skull and Bones."

Buchanan is the investigative journalist who found proof at the National
Arhives and Library of Congress that Bush's grandfather, senator
Presott, conspired to overthrow the constitution, assisisnate FDR, and
turn the US in a Nazi camp, as is explained in this video:
http://illuminati-news.com/Videos/ke...the-family.wmv

Remember when you ran away
And I got on my knees
And begged you not to leave
Because I'd go berserk

Well you left me anyhow
And then the days got worse and worse
And now you see I've gone
Completely out of my mind

And they're coming to take me away ha-haaa
They're coming to take me away ho ho hee hee ha haaa
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see those nice young men
In their clean white coats
And they're coming to take me away ha haaa

You thought it was a joke
And so you laughed
You laughed when I said
That losing you would make me flip my lid

Right? You know you laughed
I heard you laugh. You laughed
You laughed and laughed and then you left
But now you know I'm utterly mad

And they're coming to take me away ha haaa
They're coming to take me away ho ho hee hee ha haaa
To the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away ha haaa

I cooked your food
I cleaned your house
And this is how you pay me back
For all my kind unselfish, loving deeds
Ha! Well you just wait
They'll find you yet and when they do
They'll put you in the A.S.P.C.A.
You mangy mutt

And they're coming to take me away ha haaa
They're coming to take me away ha haaa ho ho hee hee
To the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see those nice young men
In their clean white coats

And they're coming to take me away
To the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away ha haaa!

"Dan" wrote in message
news:gEoMf.53315$Ug4.38641@dukeread12...
TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:GeZLf.27395$Ug4.14004@dukeread12:

Pooh Bear wrote:
TRUTH wrote:

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
clear skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham
At 30,000 feet it does
No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to
be legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.
Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do
know is what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified
to fly large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.
Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )

http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/

Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an
instrument rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large
aircraft ?

Graham


He won't because the obvious has eluded him all along assuming he's
ever flown in a commercial airliner. At 30 kilofeet on a clear day you
can look down from your passenger seat and recognize landmarks. It
would disturb him to have to actually admit another flaw in his
"logic."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




oh give it up already!

You can't see the ground from an airliner on a clear day like the
rest of us? Why not?

I understand that a bad case of cranial rectumitis can result in severe
vision impairment... :O|

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
Pooh Bear wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that
there
was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
clear skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham

At 30,000 feet it does

No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to
be legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.

Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do
know is what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified
to fly large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.

Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )

http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/

Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an
instrument rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large
aircraft ?

Graham

Thanks Graham, I bookmarked that link. Will take a look later on

How about looking at it NOW before you continue to make a ****ing ass of
yourself?

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Truth,

What I do know is
what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly
large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.


So what about the several tens of people equally qualified that tell
you here that your aeronautical engineer is wrong?

They are going under the assumption that our government couldn't be
invloved in 9/11

So what you're telling us is that you can't come to your conclusion unless
you STARTED from that assumption, right? Kook...

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
mrtravel wrote in news:NGxMf.25458$_S7.22969
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

TRUTH wrote:

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:


Truth,


What I do know is
what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly
large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.


So what about the several tens of people equally qualified that tell
you here that your aeronautical engineer is wrong?




They are going under the assumption that our government couldn't be
invloved in 9/11

No, they are going under the assumption that it is possible to steer a
commercial airliner into big buildings. Even YOU made comments about
the Bush administration knowing about potential hijackings.

I don't remember what your/my original point was in this part of the
discussion, so it's hard to comment

Dude, you sound to mentally feeble to engage in discussion on issues you
know little about. How about giving this crap up and moving on to some Elvis
conspiracy, where you will be dealing with a group more in tune with your IQ
and educational level?

On 3 Mar 2006 12:55:44 -0800, wrote:
wrote:
I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and
why it is a physically provable fact that all of the damage done to the
Pentagon could not have occurred solely from a Boeing 757 impact,

oh, this will be good.

[...]

We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer
wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9
feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly
perfectly cut circular hole in a reinforced concrete wall, with no
subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. If we are to believe that
some how this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this final wall. It
is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean
cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine

Sorry, but this is just not so. "neat clean" was a feature of the
nature of impact. By the time the mass was reaching those last
walls, velocity was lower, but it was almost assuredly concentrated
in a narrow channell.

see pictures: http://images.google.com/images?q=pentagon%20hole

because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall
fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.

Sorry, the reinforcing frequently supports the otherwise heavily
cracked (or crazed really) concrete. In this case I suspect there was
some block involved although I'm not sure. That even tends to
concentrate the area even more.

The Pentagon's exterior walls are not reinforced concrete. The building
does have reinforced concrete columns and floor slabs, but the wall between
the columns (which are spaced about 10 feet apart on the first floor) is
8 inches of brick infill with a 5-inch limestone facing over the brick.
See the Pentagon Building Performance Report [1] for details of the
construction.


ljd

[1] http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/art017.html