REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Is Jesse Ventura right?

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Thursday, August 22, 2024 11:33
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5018
PAGE 3 of 3

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:46 PM

FLETCH2


A note.

Back in 1980 something there was a show on TV where a member of the public and a celeb were partnered and given control of various vehicles (Tanks, bull dosers, sports cars.)

The final was to land Concorde using the BA flight simulator (landing is very difficult compared to normal level flight.)

Most teams flew the plane to the airfield (you set the heading on the fight navigation system and let the autonav fly the plane) most then crashed on landing..... but not all, at least one team made a fast but survivable landing in a plane with manual flight controls and 1970's avionics. This was with no instruction other than "over the radio" talk down.

People are surprisingly good at doing all kinds of things when they have to. Note also that the hijackers were not random zeebs that woke up one day and decided to do this, the best and brightest were picked to carry this out. The clumsy average Jihadist was left in Afghanistan.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 6:20 PM

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.

I'd love to explain in detail, but not allowed to do that, and not sure it would be advisable if I were.

The flight qualification question kinda gets murky when you add in that many of the so-called hijackers weren't the people accused and factor in the credibility of some of the involved flight schools, cause getting a plane confiscated over 40+ pounds of heroin onboard doesn't help one's credibility a whole lot, and the lack of charges over that is enough to lift an eyebrow just by itself.

That stinks of leverage, but there's really no evidence to go on, other than at least one of the flight schools not being exactly sterling in reputation or credibility.

It does create a reasonable doubt about any documentation they may have provided, but I don't see that it's too revelant whether or not they could fly a single engine, what's relevant is did they have enough knowledge of the onboard instrumentation to set and follow a course, and I would say they very likely had that, especially if it was all they were interested in to begin with.

Also, to add to the questions above...

What the hell was Mohammed Atta doing on Jack Abramoff's casino boat less than a week before this happened ?

See, too many folk focus on small parts of the events and get all into nitpickery detail without really solving anything - 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.

But grilling folk who know the answers to some of the questions I have proposed, now that might open things up a little bit.

I rather doubt Abramoff has no idea why these berks were on one of his casino boats, I doubt the SEC doesn't know who made those trades, and I highly doubt Odigo doesn't know who sent that message.

And yet, we don't have those answers, do we ?

If you really wanna chase something like this down, it's people you should focus on, rather than technical details, look at any good investigative work, and it always comes down to the detective, the forensics personnel mostly serve to back up what the detective has put together from his investigation into the people involved.

Now back up and look at it from THAT perspective, and you'll see why these discussions generally don't carry forward anything that might help resolve the issue.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:45 AM

CITIZEN


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.

Erm, no, but yeah. Fletch said it better than me about the CoG. CTS tries to pass that off as a mere technicality, as it not being as simple as that, because if it is as simple as that, that's a major talking point gone. But it kinda is.

A building is like a house of cards, but the cards are steel and concrete. When a house of cards fails, it falls in it's own foot print.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:46 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
there is nothing to say.

It's not just my posts. It's anyone who disagrees, and even when you do, it's usually to pick on one small side aspect.
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.)
Saying they did have flight experience when you said they don't isn't a technicality, no matter how much you'd like to portray it as. As far as you're concerned seems to be a case of confirmation bias to me. Sorry.
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.

They're more than you've given us, in support of you're objections. Facts have been provided refuting you, none have been provided in support.
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.
Perhaps you're not paying attention, I submitted this earlier:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf
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.

They weren't inexperienced.
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.
It's absolutely nothing like that at all. I don't think that deserves much more refutation than that, but since I can't just flatly state things I guess I'll have to. The hijackers weren't blindfolded, partially or otherwise for a start, so comparing them to someone doing something half blind is just plain silly. There's been quotes from pilots on this thread that say it is that easy. People have given you reasons, you respond with appeals to ridicule that seem based on nothing more than your desire to believe it's 'unlikely'. This is what is tedious, you are basing your objections on your gut feeling, while demanding hard evidence from everyone else, and even where it's provided you carry on stating the same thing as if it hasn't.

Also, in science it's not enough to say "that theory isn't good enough". You have to prove it isn't yourself, and you have to present a better theory, neither of which you've done. Since you're "just asking questions" which apparently means they require no backup, and no answer is good enough or even worthy of refutation, lets forget that avenue for now. What's your alternate theory?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:48 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Gravity is just a theory.




Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:34 AM

CANTTAKESKY


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.

And let's just say we disagree on this one. Again, this is not what I hear from pilots with the experience I trust.
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.
That is exactly right.

The dilemma I see is we don't know who done it and how it was done. Most people are comfortable going with their best suspects. I would rather have no suspect at all than prematurely rest my case on the wrong one. Therein lies most of the conflicts; if you reject the conventional theory, you must have an alternate conspiracy theory. It always comes down to "If you don't accept my theory, why don't you pose yours and let me poke holes in it?"

People tend to have a hard time with simply not knowing. They can't accept this as an answer: "I don't have a theory, conventional or conspiracy. All the theories I've heard don't hold water."

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:41 AM

MAL4PREZ


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.

Um... so you look at opinions from several pilots and decide that one is correct and all the others aren't based on your own experience driving cars? If this is not what's happening here, please clarify for me, because my CTS merit meter is going down down down and that's no fun... (Cause you're a Firefly fan so I really want to have a high opinion of your judgement LOL!)

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.

OK, I understand that some folks here are hard to talk to - believe me I do! - and I've seen Rue go overboard more than once. I'm not surprised that you don't want to reply directly. But to dismiss the information Rue presents, just because you don't like the messenger... it just doesn't seem real professional, and not a good way to get to The Truth.

Imagine the 9/11 investigation folks testifying in front of Congress, and one of them says: "Yes ma'am Mrs Congressperson. There was that guy who provided such-and-such vital information to us, but we didn't include any of that in our findings because... well, we just don't like him very much."

What would you think of this investigator? How seriously would take his reported results?

Quote:

I don't think it is impossible. I think it is highly unlikely, for all the reasons outlined in that article.
I'm still not seeing any other reason why you're believing one article over another. What I'm getting is that you have lots of experience with cars and a deep gut-level understanding of what it takes to pilot a jetliner though you're not actually a pilot at all.

This is not convincing.

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

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:56 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

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

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:

What's your alternate theory?
I have none.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:00 AM

MAL4PREZ


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.

The problem here is that this bag of "loose ends and inconsistencies" you hold out as proof does not hold much water, and clinging to it only weakens your case and leads you astray. Analzing each of your questions is necessary, though it may indeed cause the death of several - those which do not agree with observed reality. Pretending they do agree will only get you one place - further from the truth.

If you are interested in finding the truth, having your bag of conspiracy theories deflated a bit is a GOOD THING. There are aspects of the official story I don't believe either. (Frem and anti, bless their hearts, touch on the more fruitful path imho.) 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."

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... are you changing focus away from the technical issues you raised above for a reason? Are you unable to defend them?)

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

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:14 AM

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:

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. And as I said, this is on top of the opinions of pilots I've talked to who has considerable flight experience I trust. Now I am not dismissing ANYONE's opinion here. I am still open to more opinions, which will continue to be weighed and evaluated. I have just seen insufficient opinion to convince me it is likely for pilots with the alleged hijackers' flight experience to accurately target WTC going 750 ft / sec.

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?

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?

(Still working on your other points on the WTC collapse. I didn't forget.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:26 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:
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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:36 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hey Citizen - I was thinking that if you had a vertical member that toppled outward it would topple outside of the building footprint. Other than that - of course everything else stays within b/c it falls straight down. Even a 100 foot vertical member (assuming they have such things) if it toppled inward would stay within the building footprint - b/c most large modern buildings have at least a 100 foot width/depth.

So, to absolutely guarantee that a building will fall in its own footprint (or a reasonable approximation of it) the one thing you need to do during design is limit the length of the vertical members. Either that or afterwards bring them down in such a way as to fall inward, or both.

That was a side trip I know, but interesting to me anyway.

Living in an earthquake zone I tend to keep up with what brings buildings down and how do they come down when they do come down. That's how I got my information on tilt-up buildings and the Mexico City earthquake - and about how it is that buildings (and freeways like the Nimitz)
pancake as a very specific type of failure. (If you aren't familiar with the event, what you are seeing is the upper-level of the freeway lying directly atop the lower elevated level of the freeway, with a few unfortunate cars and trucks smashed flat in between providing a few inch gap. The supports for the upper level splayed outward and down and some came off in that direction.) Having seen a lot of buildings with wall/floor support structures pancake it wasn't a surprise to me to see the WTC buildings - with a similar support structure - pancake as well. But the whole thing about buildings coming down in their own footprint in general was new and interesting though I should have guessed it just from the physics involved - :smacks forehead: DUH !.

Back to WTC, since the vertical members did NOT fall inward (they were curved back 180 deg, peeled out and down, like a banana peel) it argues that the buildings were NOT imploded in a way as to make them fall correctly inward. Or, in other words, it was NOT a controlled demolition.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:50 AM

MAL4PREZ


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.

You do not reply to a post and never refer to it's very relevant information until I pressure you over it. What can I interpret that as, other than dismissal?

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.

Thank you! That is useful information! Now we're getting somewhere.

Rue, is this true? I'd check on CTS's source but I can't find the connection now... bah! Of course, real research would involve looking through many more sources...


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?

And I've heard from quite a few sources that it's the other way around - not so hard to do. Everyone on this thread has found differing info from you, in fact. Not that it's resolved. As you say, this particular question is all about the experts we believe, since no one here has flown a jetliner.

As far as my comment about being able to see NYC - this was in direct response to your guy's article, since he claimed that the hijackers could never have even found their way to NYC. 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? Because the transponder was off? How does that stop you from seeing landmarks, or a big ass building right in front of you?

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?
What I've tried to voice is that you ask for discussion and then ignore anything you don't like, (not reponding to is ignoring!) and the reasons you give for choosing your experts, when you bother to give any, are weak. The reason you gave above - that the pilot you believe has flying experience - is strong. Can you just do more of that, and less responding with silence?

Cause hey, if I am misunderstanding you, it's clear that I'm not the only one on this thread. All I want is for you to carry out this discussion you claim to want, and that you make an effort to decribe your logic.

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.

You have stated that the official story is not believable (that's the theory). You have pointed to several issues and claimed that they are holes in the offical story (proof of the theory).

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.

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:

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.

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. I refer to these as "a bag of conspiracy theories" because they are your theories and you imply that they may be evidence of conspiracies to hide the truth. Such as, as you said: "Maybe they did such a piss poor job that the entire engineering world has decided to cover up this gross negligence for fear of never getting another skyscraper contract."


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.



Issue #1: You said - "I might buy that if the upper levels toppled over as the building fell. But those levels pancaked perfectly, one on top of the other, and practically disintegrated while falling. What are the chances of that happening, without some sort of demolition job?"

The chances are extremely high is what anyone who's actually studied physics or engineering is trying to explain to you. The theory you presented (by posting a connection) about the floor truss failure was countered by several posts. I suppose that's what you're still looking at, right? So I'll leave it alone.


#2 My point is that you continue to dismiss the automated nature of the plane and info given to you by Rue and Fletch2 and others on this thread, and you continue to insist the pilots were blind although they had GPS, a perfectly clear sky, and eyeballs that worked.

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.

That's the exact belief I'm referring to. It appears that your highest priority is to cling to this belief rather than look for the truth. It is not enough to wave our hands and say there are holes everywhere - we must identify the *real* ones, and dismiss those which are unfounded.

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.

And admit evidence from all sources, whether they agree with your preconceived notions or not, whether you like them or not. Which isn't easy. I struggle with this myself a'plenty.


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:24 AM

CITIZEN


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.

Yeah, but that's not exactly a great position to argue from. It's the same sort of position proponents of Intelligent Design use.
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.
Actually, it's not ok to pick at a theory because you don't like it based on gut instinct, and not offer an alternative explanation for the things the theory explains. The official theory, for all the faults you say it has, still explains the observed evidence better than "I don't know".
Quote:

I have none.
Forgive me, you seemed to be a proponent of the Demolition Hypothesis earlier.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:51 AM

CANTTAKESKY


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?

I don't have a lot of time right now, but this is a quick and dirty response. It is hard to find because you're 30K feet in the air. The pilot had to navigate 3 dimensionally (horizontally and vertically) in an aircraft he's never been in. There may have been IFR conditions along the way at that altitude (cloud cover etc). The disorientation is not a true blindfold, but the analogy is meant to touch on the fact that a pilot in that kind of aircraft has to rely on instruments. Not having experience in using those instruments is LIKE driving without being able to see everything.

Here are some more pilot opinions.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=11692&st=0

Here is another opinion from the same website:
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



Again, not saying these folks are right, and you guys are wrong. Just that these types of opinions from pilots who have significant hours in type (of airplane) carries weight with me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:38 PM

CANTTAKESKY


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.
I have SUSPICIONS that the official story is false; I have no proof, nor have I offered any viewpoint as proof.
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.
Which evidence is conclusive is a matter of opinion. When it is all said and done, it still comes down to someone's opinion. Those "scientific" issues aren't as hard and fast as you might think--that is why there is a debate amongst scientists and professionals.

Just so you know, I'm not avoiding "the science." I am reading the 911 debunker links you sent, as well as some technical arguments found at this site.

http://www.ae911truth.org/#techarts

When I finish mulling it over and can summarize what I perceive to be the key issues, I'll post them and see what you have to say. Okay? Maybe you can read these articles too, so we have some common arguments to think about.

Specifically, I'm reading these articles:
http://www.seattle911visibilityproject.org/rwtcpdf.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.
pdf


http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-Ro
bertsonTranscript.pdf


http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pd
f


It just takes time to study this stuff, you know? Doesn't take a lot of time to read it once, enough to form one's personal conclusions. But to understand the material well enough to engage in debate is another matter.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:37 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


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

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:54 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

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

For the record:

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



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:07 PM

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.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:14 PM

ANTIMASON


i think Frem made a great point(if i understood correctly), when he said we need to be questioning the various individuals, bureaucrats and private interests whoever, who can either be linked, or seemed to indicate prior knowledge or exhibited suspicious behavior. there was plenty of indications that this was foreseen, from insider trading, cancelled flights by top brass, "coincidental" policy initiatives.. their was even a rumor going around NY warning people to stay out of that part of town that morning. this type of information or evidence is paramount, if even circumstantial

the problem is too many people underestimate the machine. something of this magnititude, 9/11, the 'war on terror', the Iraq war, they just dont happen by accident, randomly, or through (innocent) mass reaction. the french revolution didnt spontaneously occur, there were conspirators behind it all along, who harnessed the energy of the populace.

this could have been handled as a federal crime, and we could have avoided a whole lot of trouble.. but instead, take a look around: we're fighting two wars, via deficit spending that is crushing our economy and dismantling our constitution. would anyone else, nevermind muslim extremists, benefit from a totalitarian America?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:22 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Like most things, I give it all 50/50 either way. Is our government capable of purpitrating this on a lack of moral ground and on their competency? Sure... in the upper eschelons, which Duhbya obviously wouldn't have been a part of, even if for no other reason than deniability, our Government can be very competent and precise. And the truth is, each and every one of us are nothing but almost meaningless numbers and even in groups of 1,000's we don't amount to much in their eyes....

On the other hand...

We've been doing quite a lot of pissing on the wrong toes. It's all well and good to sit in judgment of everyone else when we're by far the only ones big enough to push everyone else around an pit the others against one another. Maybe these cave dwellers really put something that big together and caught us completely unawares. I mean, I'd like to think that if I were in a situation where I believed that dying for the cause of freedom from oppresive tyrrany were upon me that I would perform half as well under pressure. (And I'm sure that that comment is going to put me on a watch list if I'm not on one already and will be just as misconstrued as Bill Mahar's comment about their bravery was).

Then there's always a third way it could have gone down.... The cave dwellers put up a very impressive front, but in this scenario we knew about every detail about it with plenty of time in advance to interviene but instead chose to turn our backs on it... 7 years later becoming the country which employs 24% of its work force in millitary, police and other security positions. Ain't going to get people to let Big Brother in the door until you teach them to love him.

And I'm sure there are many other ways it could have gone. Funny thing here is, I'm kinda suprised at the sides that some people are taking in this thread. This topic seems to be unique in that regard.



"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 25, 2008 12:52 PM

ANTIMASON


relative to how many Americans die in car crashes, or drowning in bath tubs, whatever... a few thousand people dying for a greater cause seems like a worthy sacrifice. sometimes i wonder if this type of outlook would be enough to politically justify a certain epic vision for America, or the world (the NWO)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 25, 2008 2:49 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I was using pancaking in the way CTS seemed to be using it - to indicate floors falling straight down on each other.
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.



***************************************************************
Added - since CTS made the claim that buildings (or structures) just don't pancake except during controlled demolitions, I thought (silly me) that by pointing out all the ways that buildings (and structures) do pancake and have pancaked naturally; and since others pointed out that by sheer physics buildings (and structures) do fall in their own footprint; it might introduce the possibility that indeed, the buildings could have come down the way they did without the help of a controlled demolition.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 26, 2008 7:58 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


As I was reading some of CTS's links, it occurred to me that the buildings were not brought down by controlled demolitions as proposed.

Now this is based not on expertise but on personal experience and, one hopes, some common sense.

I think we've all seen at least a half-dozen demolitions on TV. For a ring explosion, for example, what you hear is a quick, evenly-spaced series of explosions.
Like this: bang!bang!bang!bang!bang!bang!bang!bang!bang!bang!

Additionally, I lived in a city that was putting in a subway through granite bedrock - in fact I lived about 2 blocks from the line and terminus they were building. So for nearly a year I experienced, at least once a week, sequences of underground charges being set off.
Like this: (warning siren) boom..boom..boom..boom..boom..

Here's where the common sense comes in. The reason why they are so regular is because the crews need the results to be predictable. So they use uniform charges set off in a regular time sequence.

Finally, at one point I was hiking through some remote foothills here in California. I heard something that at first I thought sounded just like those underground construction explosions, I even briefly wondered to myself if there was any mining in the area. But on second thought, and applying some common sense, I realized it didn't really sound like any explosions I'd heard before. The reason was because it was highly irregular.
It went like this: thumpBAAAANG!!! ............................. boom!.boom

So even though I had literally never heard an earthquake that sounded like that before - or since - (they usually sound like a wave of freight trains coming across the landscape), and even though I felt no ground movement, I figured it had to be an earthquake b/c it was most definitely not human-caused. And that idea was confirmed by seeing all the pebbles on up to boulders on the road on the way back, and hearing the earthquake reports when I got out of the hills and back into broadcast range.

None of the accounts indicates the kind of uniform, regular explosions you need to have if you want a controlled demolition.

Personally, I'm convinced there was no controlled demolition.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 22, 2024 11:33 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


but Larry King died of Covid?


U.S. Investigating Americans Who Worked With Russian State Television
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/21/technology/us-fbi-russia-election-d
isinformation.html



Max Keiser warnings about debts and spending and deficit and Wars and Dollars, Ross Ashcroft how dare he write books and make movies like Four Horsemen...What Chutzpah!...Abby Martin she dared to question 'Greatest Ally' like Israel and pedo sickos criminals like Epstein, Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Lauren Lyster, George Galloway, sportball José Mourinho, tech report by Julian Assange

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Oops! Clown Justin Trudeau accidently "Sieg Heils!" a Nazi inside Canadian parliament
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:24 - 4 posts
Stupid voters enable broken government
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:04 - 130 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:09 - 7499 posts
The predictions thread
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:02 - 1190 posts
Netanyahu to Putin: Iran must withdraw from Syria or Israel will ‘defend itself’
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:56 - 16 posts
Putin's Russia
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:51 - 69 posts
The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:44 - 4 posts
Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:39 - 2 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:35 - 4763 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL