ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags flight 77 , pentagon

Reply
Old 1st December 2009, 04:07 PM   #1
tj15
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 425
Flight 77 maneuver

This question is for the pilots here... How difficult was the maneuver that Hani Hanjour pulled off? Truthers like to point to experienced pilots that claim there is no way he could have pulled it off.

So, how difficult was that maneuver? Maybe on a scale from 1 to 10... I am interested in what the pilots at this forum have to say.
tj15 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2009, 04:17 PM   #2
Mr.Herbert
Graduate Poster
 
Mr.Herbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,448
Here is a video of a novice doing it:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Mr.Herbert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2009, 05:19 PM   #3
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,653
Originally Posted by tj15 View Post
So, how difficult was that maneuver? Maybe on a scale from 1 to 10... I am interested in what the pilots at this forum have to say.
You are undoubtedly one of the worst researcher to ever make an appearance here. This has been covered umpteen times in multiple threads. I have explained it previously and so has beachnut along with several others.

I'm not going to waste my time explaining it again in detail.

It was easy = 1! If you want more then get off your lazy behind and search for it. Sheesh!
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2009, 06:38 PM   #4
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert View Post
Here is a video of a novice doing it:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Yeah, but he's German, not some cave Arab.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2009, 12:37 AM   #5
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Yeah, but he's German, not some cave Arab.

I agree that performing that maneuver with a 757 would be difficult while inside a cave, even one of those massive underground bunker-caves Al Qaeda have.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2009, 08:41 AM   #6
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert View Post
Here is a video of a novice doing it:
To be fair, that "novice" did have some experience in flying small planes (as do I). I think it would be possible to take any person off the street and he'd stand a decent chance of hitting one of the Twin Towers, but the Pentagon is a little harder because you have to control for altitude.

A total novice would probably have a hard time making the 360-degree turn and hitting the Pentagon, because the first thing you learn in flight school is how to maintain the altitude you want during a turn. Control of airspeed, bank angles, and altitude isn't all that hard, but does take some amount of familiarization of the concepts.

In fact, a total novice at the controls, finding himself too high and fast when he identifies the target (like I think Hanjour did), would probably just try to point the nose down and hit it that way. And this total novice likely would have missed, either because he let his airspeed get way too high and broke the plane apart, or he wouldn't have been familiar with how the plane tends to stabilize itself and he'd have to fight it the whole way down.

Hanjour at least knew enough to make a circle to get rid of the excess altitude, but there wasn't anything difficult about the turn he made that a person who's had two weeks of flying lessons couldn't do.

As far as I'm aware, the Truther claim that it was a difficult maneuver were made *before* the flight data was released showing its true path. They had taken statements from ATCs about the turn they saw, and imagined all kinds of impossible scenarios from the omitted details. In fact, I used to play around at the old Loose Change Forum, and was in a discussion with JohnDoeX, whom we now know to be the infamous Rob Balsamo, and I got him to draw a diagram of what this maneuver looked like. Balsamo drew a 340-degree turn that descended 5000 feet, and this turn had a diameter of 1/4 mile! Since that's what these guys were imagining the turn to be, it's no wonder that they didn't believe Hanjour could do it. But they have very poor critical thinking skills, and didn't realize the faulty assumptions they were making in defining what the maneuver looked like.
__________________
Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2009, 09:09 AM   #7
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Are you just JAQing off again? Really?

Why don't you put in 5 minutes of doing REAL research and find your own answers? They aren't hard to find.

For an experienced pilot with over 600 hours of flight time (which Hani had) it was a rather easy maneuver... In fact, you can see how bad of a pilot he was because he was all over the sky.

<beachnut> with dirt dumb ideas and failed math PFT has shown that they are incompetent pilots with failed math. Got math? </beachnut>
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2009, 02:31 PM   #8
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,651
I asked a friend of mine (a pilot) if he could duplicate the turn. graze the VDT antenna, snap off the light poles, take out the generator and hit the wire spools. His response?

No ****way could he do that again!!!!!!!! Then he went on. This is something a rookie could easily do once but, no ones going to duplicate it.

That's the definition of the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy"
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2009, 03:11 PM   #9
tj15
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 425
Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert View Post
Here is a video of a novice doing it:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Thanks for the video.
tj15 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2009, 03:12 PM   #10
tj15
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 425
Originally Posted by CurtC View Post
To be fair, that "novice" did have some experience in flying small planes (as do I). I think it would be possible to take any person off the street and he'd stand a decent chance of hitting one of the Twin Towers, but the Pentagon is a little harder because you have to control for altitude.

A total novice would probably have a hard time making the 360-degree turn and hitting the Pentagon, because the first thing you learn in flight school is how to maintain the altitude you want during a turn. Control of airspeed, bank angles, and altitude isn't all that hard, but does take some amount of familiarization of the concepts.

In fact, a total novice at the controls, finding himself too high and fast when he identifies the target (like I think Hanjour did), would probably just try to point the nose down and hit it that way. And this total novice likely would have missed, either because he let his airspeed get way too high and broke the plane apart, or he wouldn't have been familiar with how the plane tends to stabilize itself and he'd have to fight it the whole way down.

Hanjour at least knew enough to make a circle to get rid of the excess altitude, but there wasn't anything difficult about the turn he made that a person who's had two weeks of flying lessons couldn't do.

As far as I'm aware, the Truther claim that it was a difficult maneuver were made *before* the flight data was released showing its true path. They had taken statements from ATCs about the turn they saw, and imagined all kinds of impossible scenarios from the omitted details. In fact, I used to play around at the old Loose Change Forum, and was in a discussion with JohnDoeX, whom we now know to be the infamous Rob Balsamo, and I got him to draw a diagram of what this maneuver looked like. Balsamo drew a 340-degree turn that descended 5000 feet, and this turn had a diameter of 1/4 mile! Since that's what these guys were imagining the turn to be, it's no wonder that they didn't believe Hanjour could do it. But they have very poor critical thinking skills, and didn't realize the faulty assumptions they were making in defining what the maneuver looked like.
That's a good point... Those who say the turn was difficult likely don't know the path flight 77 took.
tj15 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 09:36 AM   #11
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,087
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
The only plane I could see the theory of remote control having any weight is with the Pentagon.
If you had taken the time to look at the FDR, you will see it was pilot inputs. All 911 truth claims fail with simple research. The FDR shows control inputs consistent with aircraft movement - thus no remote control, proved by solid evidence.

Originally Posted by Jango View Post
I wanted to touch on this a bit more.

A Trainee Noted for Incompetence

Watching cjnewson88's American Airlines Flight 77 Reconstruction with ATC Recording - September 11 2001 video on, yes, Youtube, comes at me like a glaring contradiction.
A new report from the MSM (which 911 truth is convinced the MSM is in on it) is evidence for remote control? not

Remote control? Add thousands more in on the plot. Total nonsense.

News stories which failed to show any details of the FDR, RADAR, and witnesses? News stories designed to grab attention and, sell soap.

Was Hani the worse pilot? Is this why he got the biggest target on 911, 900 foot wide Pentagon? Hani could not fly? He was FAA certified, quote mining some instructors is not a good sign of much more than a slick story. They left out other comments.

He was a poor pilot, yet is his final flight a good indicator? His bank control in the 757 sucked, his speed control was unsat, his pitch control unsat. His planning to get down in time, unsat, he had to do a ~360 let down turn to get down. Hani was bad, and his flying proved, topped off with crash, he committed suicide, his flying was so bad. Never saw a remote control that bad; sort of.

Hani was bad, look at his PIO in the final seconds...

Look; in less than 3 seconds a 200 pound person would feel like they were 80 pounds then to over 320 pounds.
Wow, Hani is a bad pilot, and he crashed - he almost crashed into the raised highway, missed it by 40 feet...

And here we have from 911, samples of the real pilots bank angle control, and Hani's bank angle control.


Remote control is a fantasy.
Flight 77 was flown by a pilot into the Pentagon, the FDR proves it. Evidence. 911 truth uses BS.

The news article you posted, left out the remarks of another more experienced instructor; who said Hani would be able to take over and crash the 757. I flew large jets for many years, it is easier to fly jets than prop planes, and the 757 has the poor flight qualities engineered out vs the KC-135 I flew for thousands of hours - thus it was easier than my KC-135, a 707 variant.
Flight 93 was not shot down, or other nonsense; FDR, DNA, RADAR, and testimony proves 93 crashed, at the hands of terrorists in PA.

Hani's poor flying kind of confirms it was Hani - and backed up with instructors saying how poor he was; all goes to confirm the poor flying found in the FDR. BINGO
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 27th April 2015 at 09:54 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 10:36 AM   #12
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by tj15 View Post
This question is for the pilots here... How difficult was the maneuver that Hani Hanjour pulled off? Truthers like to point to experienced pilots that claim there is no way he could have pulled it off.

So, how difficult was that maneuver? Maybe on a scale from 1 to 10... I am interested in what the pilots at this forum have to say.
For an experienced pilot - 0.25 to 1
For a novice pilot with small plane experience and some Sim on larger craft - 1.5
For a novice pilot with some small plane experience - 2
For man off the street with a couple hours training - 5

For a Pilots for 911 Truth pilot - 11
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 11:41 AM   #13
Metullus
Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,045
Holy Necro-thread Batman! Bumping a 5+ year old thread - ah, the good old days...
__________________
I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 - I'll miss Tim.

Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy
Metullus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 12:10 PM   #14
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,087
Originally Posted by Metullus View Post
Holy Necro-thread Batman! Bumping a 5+ year old thread - ah, the good old days...
Moved some stuff from the "what happened on 911" http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post10617090. The OP wanted no discussion; thus the Zombie thread was used to move the discussion (ask not the mods can do for you; ask what you can do for the mods; moved by definition in the OP the off topic discussion to a thread near the same theme... Oystein was going to make me buy the beers... ) - some fence sitters after 13 years of BS.

The 911 truth world called the poor flying by Hani some fantastic maneuver no experienced pilot could carry out. 911 truth failed to realize the comments were opinions from people who never studied anything about the "maneuver". When I studied the "maneuver", I found out it was the easiest maneuver in the book, called a crash, preceded by "pink slip" flying.

With the BS claims on the Hani maneuver, 911 truth made me "look"; and I discovered "dumber than dirt" sums up 911 truth's best efforts. With remote control (of a stock 757 in commercial service) at a level of ignorance that defies definition.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 12:25 PM   #15
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Yeah, but he's German, not some cave Arab.
Isn't he dutch rather than german ?
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 12:26 PM   #16
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,376
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
When I studied the "maneuver", I found out it was the easiest maneuver in the book, called a crash, preceded by "pink slip" flying.
This is the important perspective. When other pilots try to gauge the difficulty of the 9/11 terrorist-pilots' maneuvers, they seem to evaluate them in the mindset that the pilot wants to perform the maneuver and then recover the airplane. This is reasonable. When most pilots climb into the flight deck, their primary goal is to exit the flight deck alive. Hence maneuvers that carry a substantial risk of death would be considered foolhardy or difficult in that context.

But if you have no fear of death, then you'll attempt more. This is the age-old difficulty of stopping suicide attacks. Most of our existing deterrents require the target to have some sense of self-preservation. But going beyond that, if your plan is to crash the plane then you aren't concerned with whether you can recover it after some maneuver. Hence the "difficulty" of flying it a dozen feet off the ground for some distance simply has no meaning in the context. The pilot wanted the maneuver to end as a crash.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 12:29 PM   #17
Metullus
Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,045
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Moved some stuff from the "what happened on 911" http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post10617090. The OP wanted no discussion; thus the Zombie thread was used to move the discussion (ask not the mods can do for you; ask what you can do for the mods; moved by definition in the OP the off topic discussion to a thread near the same theme... Oystein was going to make me buy the beers... ) - some fence sitters after 13 years of BS.

The 911 truth world called the poor flying by Hani some fantastic maneuver no experienced pilot could carry out. 911 truth failed to realize the comments were opinions from people who never studied anything about the "maneuver". When I studied the "maneuver", I found out it was the easiest maneuver in the book, called a crash, preceded by "pink slip" flying.

With the BS claims on the Hani maneuver, 911 truth made me "look"; and I discovered "dumber than dirt" sums up 911 truth's best efforts. With remote control (of a stock 757 in commercial service) at a level of ignorance that defies definition.
I understood why you bumped the thread once a backtracked your link to Jango's post. It was just déjà vu all over again.
__________________
I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 - I'll miss Tim.

Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy
Metullus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 12:32 PM   #18
Metullus
Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,045
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The pilot wanted the maneuver to end as a crash.
And even the worst licensed pilot has the skill set to make that happen...
__________________
I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 - I'll miss Tim.

Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy
Metullus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 12:54 PM   #19
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,782
Originally Posted by Metullus View Post
And even the worst licensed pilot has the skill set to make that happen...
As proven when I tried landing a DC-10 at the old airport in Hong Kong in a full motion simulator
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 02:28 PM   #20
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
Originally Posted by Metullus View Post
And even the worst licensed pilot has the skill set to make that happen...
And Hanjour was that.
Most of the kooks avoid the fact that he had a basic Commercial Pilot Certificate.
George 152 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 02:39 PM   #21
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,818
But, I suspect we lost Jango Or did we?
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 11:01 PM   #22
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,286
Jango easily gets lost. He originally came here with a solid "terrorist pilots did it by flying planes" opinion, amended by a somewhat reasonable LIHOP allowance. But he is always eager and ready to jump into full-blown mad-MIHOP territory cued by the slightest "but about anomanly 63924+n?" interjection. As if he had a fetish for CTs.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 01:31 AM   #23
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Jango easily gets lost. He originally came here with a solid "terrorist pilots did it by flying planes" opinion, amended by a somewhat reasonable LIHOP allowance. But he is always eager and ready to jump into full-blown mad-MIHOP territory cued by the slightest "but about anomanly 63924+n?" interjection. As if he had a fetish for CTs.
Like what? The collapse sequences? That instructors who were paid to train Hani said that he sucked, were amazed that he could do something like what he allegedly did: fly a 757 twenty feet off the ground at 460 knots.

At the time, his alleged exploits, along with the other hijackers, were being described as:
Quote:
Pilots assessing this horrific sequence of events, to a person, believe the hijackers were in control of the three planes that hit their targets, and that they must have been well-schooled in aviation.
Quote:
TEERLING: No, these people were well qualified on the airplane. They knew the systems. They knew the navigation and they knew the flight management system and computers. And they knew navigation. I mean, they went from Boston and right down to New York. I mean, they had to know which way to turn.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../12/se.60.html


Quote:
At approximately 9:29 AM, when the aircraft was approximately 35 miles west of the Pentagon, the autopilot was disconnected as the aircraft leveled near 7000 feet. Slight course changes were initiated, during which variations in altitude between 6800 and 8000 feet were noted. At 9:34 AM, the aircraft was positioned about 3.5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon, and started a right 330-degree descending turn to the right. At the end of the turn, the aircraft was at about 2000 feet altitude and 4 miles southwest of the Pentagon. Over the next 30 seconds, power was increased to near maximum and the nose was pitched down in response to control column movements. The airplane accelerated to approximately 460 knots (530 miles per hour) at impact with the Pentagon. The time of impact was 9:37:45 AM.
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf


What do you make of this obvious discrepancy?
Jango is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 01:48 AM   #24
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,818
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Like what? The collapse sequences? That instructors who were paid to train Hani said that he sucked, were amazed that he could do something like what he allegedly did: fly a 757 twenty feet off the ground at 460 knots.

At the time, his alleged exploits, along with the other hijackers, were being described as:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../12/se.60.html

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf

What do you make of this obvious discrepancy?
He managed it somehow. It certainly happened (or are you a 'no-plane at the Pentagon' believer?) and didn't happen by remote control. That Hanjour pulled it off is the only rational answer.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 02:41 AM   #25
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
He managed it somehow. It certainly happened (or are you a 'no-plane at the Pentagon' believer?) and didn't happen by remote control. That Hanjour pulled it off is the only rational answer.
How do you know?
Jango is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 02:57 AM   #26
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
 
H'ethetheth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: among the machines
Posts: 2,681
Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert View Post
Here is a video of a novice doing it:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Funny. This is a pretty old thread, and I don't know why it was resurrected, but I just noticed that the nearest of the two guys analysing the loose change photos in this video is the Professor who supervised my thesis work.

Brings back a lot of memories.
H'ethetheth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 03:46 AM   #27
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,818
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
How do you know?
Those planes had no such capability, among other things. I suggest you search the forum for more information.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 04:23 AM   #28
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,133
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Like what? The collapse sequences? That instructors who were paid to train Hani said that he sucked, were amazed that he could do something like what he allegedly did: fly a 757 twenty feet off the ground at 460 knots.
That's a classic example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. He didn't fly a 757 straight and level 20 feet off the ground; he flew it on a descending course into the side of a building, and by dumb luck didn't quite hit the ground before he hit the wall. And if he had hit the ground first, we'd be arguing about how an untrained pilot managed to hit the ground precisely 20 feet, or 100 feet, or whatever, short of the Pentagon, because that was the exact distance needed to reduce the collision speed just enough to do no more damage than the exact amount that was actually done.

As for your clearly-implied suggestion that AA77 was remote controlled and the others weren't (don't deny it, please, because you've already said that you don't think the others were RC), what kind of sense does that make in any universe?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 06:22 AM   #29
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Those planes had no such capability,
You know that for a fact?

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
among other things.
Such as?

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I suggest you search the forum for more information.
I'd rather not be deferred to that, I'd rather hear it directly from you instead.
Jango is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 06:52 AM   #30
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
That's a classic example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. He didn't fly a 757 straight and level 20 feet off the ground; he flew it on a descending course into the side of a building, and by dumb luck didn't quite hit the ground before he hit the wall. And if he had hit the ground first, we'd be arguing about how an untrained pilot managed to hit the ground precisely 20 feet, or 100 feet, or whatever, short of the Pentagon, because that was the exact distance needed to reduce the collision speed just enough to do no more damage than the exact amount that was actually done.
The plane was observed by people in the vicinity. It was described as being at-or-about 20 feet off of the ground.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
As for your clearly-implied suggestion that AA77 was remote controlled and the others weren't (don't deny it, please, because you've already said that you don't think the others were RC), what kind of sense does that make in any universe?
It's not a belief, though, so settle down on that regard. I've insinuated the possibility of it being remote controlled. Using commercial jets as an instrument of terrorism, even by remote control, makes about as much sense as what military planners and intelligence agencies can conjure up, like with Operation Northwoods. Using planes themselves as a weapon was felt by the U.S. Navy a whole bunch in World War II. (Another interesting fact that came out of World War II was the deployment of unmanned aircraft. The drone has been around for a while now.) In the war against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, the Augusto C. Sandino International Airport was attacked with a bomb-laden small manned aircraft, paid for by American taxpayers and provided by the C.I.A.

The capability was there. Hani has been described by his instructors as being terrible, so much so that they called the FAA. I watched CJ's video from the beginning to the very end, and then re-watched all of Hani's movements. Quite remarkable feats for someone who could not handle a Cessna. The fact that he was given a license is not a trumpet to his aviational skills, it is a knock against the FAA, who has many in 9/11, because they had been specifically contacted and warned about him by his instructors.

There are many instances like that in 9/11 where the so-called deficit of common sense, competency and logical thinking was so severely lacking. They were not all a bunch of ignorant dumbasses. Look at the passports they all used to get into the U.S. Fifteen of the nineteen should have been denied immediately because of all of the obvious errors and red flags any passport puncher would recognize at first glance. Kind of like how the Blind Sheikh was able to enter the U.S. even after being on the naughty list. He had help doing that, and that help came from the C.I.A.

Do you see the pattern yet?
Jango is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 07:02 AM   #31
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,133
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
The plane was observed by people in the vicinity. It was described as being at-or-about 20 feet off of the ground.
So? It wasn't flying at that height for any significant length of time; that's just how low it happened to get before it hit the wall. There's no coincidence there, just an incidence.

Originally Posted by Jango View Post
It's not a belief, though, so settle down on that regard. I've insinuated the possibility of it being remote controlled. Using commercial jets as an instrument of terrorism, even by remote control, makes about as much sense as what military planners and intelligence agencies can conjure up, like with Operation Northwoods.
But using remote control to fly one of four planes into a target while using human pilots to fly three others at the same time into different targets makes no sense whatsoever. If you can remote control one, why not remote control all of them? If you can get three decent pilots, why not either find a fourth or only hit three targets? And anyway, none of the pilots had to be particularly good; they didn't have to take off or land, and if one of them crashed (as, in fact, one did), it would just be seen as a more limited success.

Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Do you see the pattern yet?
There's a word for seeing patterns that aren't there.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 07:21 AM   #32
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,999
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Do you see the pattern yet?
Yup! The pattern is that once you accept the premise of a conspiracy, then everything that did or didn't happen must be explained in terms of that premise, which is easy because any counter evidence can be explained as fake and all lack of evidence can be explained as a coverup.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 07:28 AM   #33
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,087
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Like what? The collapse sequences? That instructors who were paid to train Hani said that he sucked, were amazed that he could do something like what he allegedly did: fly a 757 twenty feet off the ground at 460 knots.
What is the 20 feet off the ground? Why do you quote mine BS. Hani was in a descent up to the Pentagon, not some level flight BS you found on the Internet.
All the instructors? No, some quote mined instructors, as you fall for the MSM articles which you have idea what they left out, etc.
What does the FDR say about the 20 foot BS? What is real evidence say? Gee, Hani hit the Pentagon, BINGO, means the instructors were wrong - the MSM got instructors who were wrong. How did that happen? Gee, did anyone look at the Data? Did you? Gee, you posted the RADAR data... It show nothing special...

Where do you get 20 feet?
The last four seconds of Radio Altimeter height, which is calibrated for the landing gear down...
183 feet, 89 feet, 57 feet, 4 - feet last four seconds of 77,
Jango, I do not see 20 feet except for the last second where Flight 77 went from 57 feet above the ground if the gear was down, to hitting the first/second floor section, about 12 feet above the ground.
So 77 was 20 feet above the ground just like on landing, for an instant.
Guess the fish-eye like lens on the parking camera fooled 911 truth into thinking 77 sped across the ground; it did not. Where did you get 20 feet?

Originally Posted by Jango View Post
At the time, his alleged exploits, along with the other hijackers, were being described as:
MSM, quote mining. Why does 911 truth use MSM, since the MSM was in on 911? Makes no logical sense to use MSM quote mining for anything. Why do you use MSM mistakes and BS for your knowledge of 911?

Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Wow, CNN... wow, Wolf Blitzer? Wolf?

Quote:
Pilots assessing this horrific sequence of events, to a person, believe the hijackers were in control of the three planes that hit their targets, and that they must have been well-schooled in aviation.
BS statement, the plane crashed into building, it takes no skill.
Landing takes an exact course (not heading, course), hitting a building can be done on any course - means hitting a building is infinitely easier than landing, one course to land, and you must be on center line, any course to hit the building and it can change constantly until impact... BS statement by a BS news organization taking quote mines from BS people to fool you. You are a quote miner, who loves to scan and make up BS. Proof is this statement you picked - it is BS.
Landing takes an exact attitude, hitting a building can be any attitude, even upside down - flight 93 crashed up side down. Means crashing is infinitely easier than landing.
Along with attitude, landing has to be at one set speed, exact speed; hitting a building can be at any speed, from a stall, to well past Vmo, 120 knots to 510 knots, means crashing into a building is easier, much easier than landing. Thus the statement you quote mined is BS.
An American kid off the street with zero flight time could fly as good as the terrorist pilots - I have witnesses it as an instructor in the USAF - I have thousand of hours and have had zero trained people in the seat, they flew good enough with no training to hit a building; wow, how did Hani hit a 900 foot wide Pentagon when he had problems with the 40 foot wide runway near DC? Wow, how - gee, 900 foot wide, 40 foot wide... Do you need to quote mine to make up BS


Quote:
TEERLING: No, these people were well qualified on the airplane. They knew the systems. They knew the navigation and they knew the flight management system and computers. And they knew navigation. I mean, they went from Boston and right down to New York. I mean, they had to know which way to turn.
BS again, it was VMC conditions (aka clear and a million, no clouds on 911), like all pilots the terrorists were trained in VOR, they had to fly alone to different airports to get their FAA pilots licence; the 757/767 have VORs, thus you tune in the VOR next to the Pentagon and an arrow points to it; fly to the arrow, you are there, I could teach anyone to fly VORs, in seconds - thus this is BS. Plus at 30,000 feet you can see the WTC from a long way, and fly by EYE.
Wow, they knew which way to turn? lol, they were headed west, you turn east and you can't miss after tune in the VOR. A bunch of EGO talking heads from CNN, and you quote mine them without thinking twice. You take BS, to support BS.
As a pilot, I don't need any of the BS computer flight management BS, all I need to do is figure out the how to tune the VOR; and the terrorists had the flight manuals, and figured it out, the VOR were tuned to the destinations they went to. Proved by the FDRs - Gee, do you need any help seeing the WTC towers; do you need flight computers to see the WTC towers? No. BS flag goes up on all CNN has; when I watch FOX and CNN I do it for amusement, as BS flows - I use the real facts and evidence from the news, not BS like this.
The terrorists were trained in the basics, and guess what, the basics work in super duper computer planes, and the 757/767 were designed to fly well, they had engineered out the poor flying qualities of older jets, and made it easier to fly. A fact. Did you see a dutch roll from 11, or 175, or 77? No, easy hand flying, to impact; yet Hani was in a PIO, up to 2.4, or so Gs before impact, almost hit the highway, missed it by 40 feet, or less.

Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Quote:
At approximately 9:29 AM, when the aircraft was approximately 35 miles west of the Pentagon, the autopilot was disconnected as the aircraft leveled near 7000 feet. Slight course changes were initiated, during which variations in altitude between 6800 and 8000 feet were noted. At 9:34 AM, the aircraft was positioned about 3.5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon, and started a right 330-degree descending turn to the right. At the end of the turn, the aircraft was at about 2000 feet altitude and 4 miles southwest of the Pentagon. Over the next 30 seconds, power was increased to near maximum and the nose was pitched down in response to control column movements. The airplane accelerated to approximately 460 knots (530 miles per hour) at impact with the Pentagon. The time of impact was 9:37:45 AM.
You posted proof Hani did it; poor altitude control as he went down and up because he failed to retard the throttles to near idle to let down. Wow, a less than standard rate turn marked by poor bank control.
Do you seen the fact they know he hand flew it, and give more evidence when they say "control column movements". Means a person flew the jet, you just supplied multiple facts which refute remote control.

Originally Posted by Jango View Post
What do you make of this obvious discrepancy?
What are you talking about? A factual report is the Radar summary from the NTSB, who also has the FDR to use to explain 77's flying.

How do we know no remote control, you just presented the evidence; do you read what you posted?
Quote:
the autopilot was disconnected as the aircraft leveled near 7000 feet.
Remote control would use the autopilot - and the plane used was stock; as a pilot if I see new stuff, I don't take the plane, it is illegal to have unspecified modification to my jet - I don't go.
You supplied the fact the autopilot was disengaged, it means the terrorist is now flying the jet. Fact number one you missed.

Quote:
the nose was pitched down in response to control column movements.
Do you read? The terrorists pilot used the control column to pitch 77 down. Means no remote control.
How do you remote control a stock 757 in commercial service; talk about having thousands in on 911... What would it cost?

Remote control is one of the dumbest claims on 911 - for many reasons.

The FDR shows Flight 77 was hand flown. Do you understand, the FDR?

http://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/AAL77_fdr.pdf

I have the raw data, and the data which Warren decoded, which has the final four seconds, and matches the NTSB for the rest of the data. Even 911 truth nuts like Balsamo have the raw data, and thus they have to say the FDR, the entire NTSB faked the FDR. Add thousand more to the list of MIB, like me, I was on active duty on 911, thus I was in on the "stand-down", I was an active flying on 911, I am one of the MIB too; if you believe 911 truth nonsense based on ignorance.

The FDR shows Hani/Terrorists pilot make inputs which were flying Flight 77 to impact. Evidence shows no remote control.

How would you add remote control? How would it home into the Pentagon?

The only pattern I see is a Gish Gallop of BS from you, and off topic BS about passports and other BS which happened to all of us who travel.

There was no remote control on the 757/767s used on 911, it is a fact, to speculate about it is only an exercise in ignorance and BS.

You quote mined MSM to come up with BS about remote control, and skipped the FDR which shows the terrorists flew 77 poorly and crashed into the largest office building in the world and almost crashed hundreds of feet short into the highway, missing it by 40 feet. The final airspeed was 483.5 knots, the engines were at full throttle - the FDR says so, not some Wolf Blitzer BS interview.

I see a pattern, one of BS, on aliens, JFK, and 911.
I see a pattern, one where facts, evidence and reality take a backseat to fantasy, wild speculation, and nonsense based on opinions born in BS.

Wow, you dropped the remote control and go full blown fantasy, the CIA did it, with passports. Where do you get the Gish Gallop training. the cia
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 28th April 2015 at 07:37 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 07:43 AM   #34
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,376
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Do you see the pattern yet?
Yep, it's called layman's judgment in hindsight. You are so steeped in conspiracy rhetoric you rarely see any other explanation.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 08:01 AM   #35
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yep, it's called layman's judgment in hindsight. You are so steeped in conspiracy rhetoric you rarely see any other explanation.
Hyperbole and demonstrably false.
Jango is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 08:08 AM   #36
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,404
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yep, it's called layman's judgment in hindsight. You are so steeped in conspiracy rhetoric you rarely see any other explanation.
Pfft. You say that because you're so obviously part of the conspiracy yourself.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 08:11 AM   #37
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,376
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Hyperbole and demonstrably false.
Then please provide the demonstration.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 08:19 AM   #38
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Yup! The pattern is that once you accept the premise of a conspiracy, then everything that did or didn't happen must be explained in terms of that premise, which is easy because any counter evidence can be explained as fake and all lack of evidence can be explained as a coverup.
Actually, I had hoped for a long time that I'd find myself out of it. But, I haven't and I don't think that I can without omitting a whole bunch of unfortunate truths. It is not the way I want things, but by all open appearances, there is too much dirt and too many large ?'s to ignore what is actually there.

It is a third rail type of conversation in the mainstream circles, even though most of them have reported what is on the open record. While the government feigned surprise and a lack of imagination, the media told us that the reality of that was much different, as if we needed them to tell us that. They did though. It can be found from any major news publication operating at the time. Most interesting is T.V. media who had reporters at or near Ground Zero and what they repeatedly, across many networks, and consistent with many eyewitnesses, reported seeing, hearing and feeling: very loud and powerful explosions. But that information, even though recorded and broadcasted to millions across the world, was not introduced into any final official report thus, it is of no importance to people who spend so much time actively defending anything anyone says that is contrary to the mainstream orthodoxy.
Jango is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 08:26 AM   #39
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,087
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
The plane was observed by people in the vicinity. It was described as being at-or-about 20 feet off of the ground. ...
Source, like reference, page number, url - source this please.

Darn, the FDR show a constant decent into the Pentagon, thus it was at 20 feet for less than a hundredth of a second.

I will type this slowly... From the FDR, the radar altimeter readings for the final four seconds.

183 feet, 89 feet, 57 feet, 4 feet - impact. 4 feet matches well to being about 12 feet at the impact of the nose into the Pentagon, the RAD ALT is calibrated for zero feet at landing. What do you think about 20 feet now?

Why do you quote mine stuff. Where do you get it?

Originally Posted by Jango View Post
... The capability was there.
There was zero capability for a stock 757/767 on 911 to be remotely controlled. It is zero, no matter how much you post, how many Gish Gallops of BS that was done, or plans, etc. Flight 11, 175, 77 and 93 were used on 911; four stock commercial airlines, not some CIA BS. Thus there was zero capability except in some fantasy born in ignorance. You can show NASA flight test for fuel additives, and it does not mean the planes on 911 were remote control, and missed their target like the NASA flight test missed the test point.


Originally Posted by Jango View Post
... Hani has been described by his instructors as being terrible, so much so that they called the FAA.
So, what is this Gish Gallop about? This is BS, since Hani must fly with an instructor to rent a plane, he essentially grounded by the FAA through the instructors who will not rent to him solo. Use some logic, stop making up BS.

Originally Posted by Jango View Post
... I watched CJ's video from the beginning to the very end, and then re-watched all of Hani's movements. Quite remarkable feats for someone who could not handle a Cessna.
Nothing in the video proves remote control and it is hard to see how poorly Hani flew from outside the cockpit. Poor flying looks okay outside the plane. The video is not proof of anything, the FDR show how poorly Hani flew. What you see from the outside no indication of how the pilot is flying, only in severe gross upsets does the plane look bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vqDDlS9Hyw
In the last seconds you can see the erratic control of Hani. BINGO
Watching a video is not a good indication of poor flying skills; planes video taped from outside don't show unsat flying skills, and look nominal.

If you were on Flight 77, it would have been clear, as Hani rolled in and out of a constant bank that the pilot was bad. You need to look at the FDR.

The real pilot was smooth, contant bank, Hani was eratic, poor bank control. Did you look at the FDR?
http://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/AAL77_fdr.pdf
Why do you use hearsay to base your BS on?

Originally Posted by Jango View Post
... The fact that he was given a license is not a trumpet to his aviational skills, it is a knock against the FAA, who has many in 9/11, because they had been specifically contacted and warned about him by his instructors.
A Gish Gallop, Hani was able to fly, but you have to land on an exact course, at an exact attitude, at an exact speed, not things a terrorists pilots need to be good at. Thus, Hani's poor flying skills are what makes it easy to identify his flying in the FDR, it sucked. Hani did fly 77, and his flying was just like the instructors implied, poor, bad. Gee, he crashed, the FAA should have, take his ticket;;;

WAIT, hold the BS --- how could Hani fly anyway. When we fly, we have to go with the service instructor and show proficiency before they rent; we have to pay to fly with the instructor to get permission to fly. Gee, this mean unless Hani buys his own plane he is essentially grounded by the "FAA", aka flight instructors who are licensed by the FAA. until he convinces the service, an instructor he is safe, competent,and can fly.

BINGO - Hani was essentially grounded by the FAA - and you have no point except I see a Gish Gallop coming, because of a lack of understanding what is written, a lack of logic.

Originally Posted by Jango View Post
...
Do you see the pattern yet?
Yes, someone likes CTs and BS about, aliens, JFK, and 911. A pattern of quote mining, then full throttle Gish Gallop.


Projection, or explaining what your posts have been...
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Hyperbole and demonstrably false.
The remote control BS is proved wrong on 911. They were stock 767/757s.

Show otherwise. No remote control.

Now, the remote control failed - here comes the loud noises, as proof of what? There were no sounds of explosives on 911; another failed BS born in the fantasy of 911 truth lies.

There are no big questions on 911, only ignorance.

Remote control, is based on ignorance, and the inability to understand the facts and evidence on record.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 28th April 2015 at 08:30 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 08:33 AM   #40
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,376
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
...I don't think that I can without omitting a whole bunch of unfortunate truths.
Resolving natural inconsistencies in observation and interpretation is not "omitting a whole bunch of unfortunate truth." That's conspiracy rhetoric for focusing on minutia while ignoring the big picture entirely.

Quote:
It is not the way I want things...
But clearly it is. You affirmatively press this approach you say you find so distasteful.

Quote:
...but by all open appearances, there is too much dirt and too many large ?'s to ignore what is actually there.
No, not by "appearances" but by your judgment.

Every single conspiracist I have debated makes exactly this argument. He doesn't want to have a conspiratorialist mindset, and he doesn't want to have these distressing beliefs, but he's dragged reluctantly and inescapably to them by their sheer objective convincing power.

It's all part of the rhetoric, Jango. It's all meant to sound like this isn't a chosen belief but one the believer has no choice but to accept, as an objective truth.

Quote:
It is a third rail type of conversation in the mainstream circles...
No, the rank and file sheeple aren't scared of these topics. More rhetoric.

Quote:
[R]eporters at or near Ground Zero [...] reported seeing, hearing and feeling: very loud and powerful explosions. But that information, even though recorded and broadcasted to millions across the world, was not introduced into any final official report...
Still more standard conspiracy rhetoric. For some inexplicable reason the results of lengthy, painstaking investigation are "politically" suspect unless they include some random detail reported onsite and interpreted at the time without the benefit of knowledge, expertise, or time to reflect.

Yes, this is your pattern.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.