Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So in order to ensure a building falls in its own footprint the one thing you have to do is to make sure there are no large vertical members that will topple.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
there is nothing to say.

---

Quote:

---

(If you want to get technical and say a little bit of single-engine experience counts as "flight experience," I'll grant that. But as far as I am concerned, they have no flight experience--whatever they have is negligible for the purposes of my question--and definitely none in jumbo jets.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Or both? There's just been very few "facts" in this thread so far. All I've been hearing are explanations parroted from PBS documentaries.

---

Quote:

---

In fact, I think your post is the first to suggest where to look for more technical information that might answer my questions. For that, thank you to you too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I don't think it is impossible. I think it is highly unlikely, for all the reasons outlined in that article. An inexperienced pilot is not going to hit a building 200 feet wide going 750 feet/second, with 25 feet to spare on either side of the plane, without difficulty.

---

Quote:

---

It is more like 16 year old successfully taking an exit ramp 7 feet wide in a 6 foot wide car, going 100 miles an hour, partially blindfolded. Not impossible, just unlikely.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Let's just say if they made in-flight control any easier, it would hand you an onscreen map with mouse and you would just click on it and say GO HERE.

---

Quote:

---

... the exact mechanics of buildings coming down are suspect by many folk, sure, but there's just not enough meat on the bone there to go chewing, just back and forth between experts and so-called experts from either side, none of which puts you any closer to the question of who exactly is responsible and what their reasons were.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
and yet your idea of flight experience is an automatic trump card?

---

Not an automatic trump. Just explaining where I'm coming from--answering your question on why I purposely ignore the alleged hijackers' flight experience.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

(Why do you just skip Rue's post? Does it lack merit? Why? Seriously, I'm wondering!)

---

I do not respond to any of Rue's posts as a matter of personal policy. Sometimes he makes good points, but nothing good has ever resulted from my conversing with Rue. We have uh...some bad history on these boards.

---

Quote:

---

I don't think it is impossible. I think it is highly unlikely, for all the reasons outlined in that article.

---

Quote:

---

Also, in science it's not enough to say "that theory isn't good enough".

---

Quote:

---

What's your alternate theory?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Most of the questions I have don't break the bank in and of themselves. Analyzing each one of them to death doesn't bring me closer to any conclusion. It is the cumulative gestalt of loose ends and inconsistencies that tells me the official story reeks and that we've got the wrong people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
But to dismiss the information Rue presents, just because you don't like the messenger...

---

Quote:

---

I'm still not seeing any other reason why you're believing one article over another.

---

Quote:

---

Did you note the points of weakness in your pilot's article? Are you going to address those, or just skip right by them?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
The problem here is that this bag of "loose ends and inconsistencies" you hold out as proof

---

Quote:

---

Analzing each of your questions is necessary,

---

Quote:

---

If you are interested in finding the truth, having your bag of conspiracy theories deflated a bit is a GOOD THING.

---

Quote:

---

But you will never get to the truth if you insist on chasing your tail on ridiculous ideas like "it should have fallen like a tree and not in it's own footprint." And "a trained pilot can't possibly fly a mostly automated plane through a mostly empty sky on a perfecly clear day."

---

Quote:

---

Again I find myself wondering: what is it you want? To find the unknown truth, or to be proven right in what you already believe?

---

Quote:

---

EDIT: It is not OK for a scientist to ignore evidence because he or she just doesn't like things that way.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
But to dismiss the information Rue presents, just because you don't like the messenger...

---

Usually, I read everything Rue writes and links to. Don't mistake not responding for dismissing.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'm still not seeing any other reason why you're believing one article over another.

---

Rue's article is written by someone with 100 hours in a single engine plane. He thinks he can fly a 767, but he's never actually done it. My article was written by someone who HAS flown heavy aircraft. His experience carries more weight with me.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Did you note the points of weakness in your pilot's article? Are you going to address those, or just skip right by them?

---

What weaknesses? Do you mean your assertion that you can see where NYC is because you've been flown around it several times? And various similar critiques? I don't know how to respond to that. No, it's not like that at all? Cause pilots I've talked to say it isn't like that at all?

---

Quote:

---

At some point, the nitpicking one way or the other isn't going to take this conversation anywhere. I've voiced my doubts, you've voiced why you think my doubts are bullshit. Let it go at that, shall we?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The problem here is that this bag of "loose ends and inconsistencies" you hold out as proof

---

I am feeling grossly misunderstood. I am holding nothing out as proof.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Analzing each of your questions is necessary,

---

And I do. I am just saying all this analysis boils down to whose "expert" opinion you value, and does not bring me any closer to any conclusions.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If you are interested in finding the truth, having your bag of conspiracy theories deflated a bit is a GOOD THING.

---

Perhaps you are not listening. I don't have a bag of conspiracy theories.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

But you will never get to the truth if you insist on chasing your tail on ridiculous ideas like "it should have fallen like a tree and not in it's own footprint." And "a trained pilot can't possibly fly a mostly automated plane through a mostly empty sky on a perfecly clear day."

---

I have never made either statement. What I said was buildings with deformed supports seem to behave differently than building with removed supports; WTC behaves more like the latter than the former. And it is highly unlikely that an inexperienced pilot with not even an IFR rating can fly a 767 at 750 ft/sec into a target that is 200 feet wide.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Again I find myself wondering: what is it you want? To find the unknown truth, or to be proven right in what you already believe?

---

And again I have to point out I don't believe anything, other than the official story is full of holes.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

EDIT: It is not OK for a scientist to ignore evidence because he or she just doesn't like things that way.

---

Of course not. It is perfectly ok though to question evidence and the conditions under which they are applicable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I'm speaking as a citizen, not as a scientist. As a citizen, I can say "I'm not buying it" if I want to.

---

Quote:

---

As a scientist, I can say there is insufficient information to come to any definitive, incontrovertible conclusions. It is perfectly ok for a scientist not to pretend to know what is going on. It is ok to have insufficient data from which to form a hypothesis or theory.

---

Quote:

---

I have none.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
This was one of the weaknesses I mean - the city is not hard to find! As I also pointed out, the article ignored the fact that the hijackers had GPS and windows. You yourself say it must have been like driving with half a blindfold. Why a blindfold?

---

Quote:

---

So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie... Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training.

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


For anyone wanting to do further research on the subject. Almost all the circumstances surrounding 9/11 have similar scenarios. Hell, they didnt even match up the parts found at each site to their airframes via maintainence logs. There is an article out there that states all the parts were returned to United two weeks after Sept 11. Why... so they could refurbish them to put in their parts dept? This is evidence from a crime scene. You dont give it back to the airline. They claim insurance and its over with.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

---

Quote:

---

You have a collection of "loose ends and inconsistencies" which you keep to returning to as proof - yes proof - that the official story is wrong.

---

Quote:

---

From my vantage point, there is much conclusive evidence that goes beyond opinion - ie the way the buildings fell. These are scientific issues which several people have addressed but you have seldom replied to. I suppose they will remain matters of opinion in your eyes as long as you continue to avoid the science.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So, for the record, have we gotten beyond 'buildings don't pancake' and 'they were blown up' ?

---

Quote:

---

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Actually that depends on how you define “pancaking.” Pancaking such as the floors becoming detached from surrounding structure and falling on top of one another doesn’t appear to be consistent with observation. Pancaking such as the floors falling on top of one another under the force of gravity DID happen, however, and is consistent with observation. The distinction that NIST is making is where the “break” occurred, not that the floors didn‘t fall one another. That’s a far cry from your apparent previous assumptions.

---