9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


I am sure that the CIT guys and the folks at Pffffft appreciate the free advertisement, but do you actually have any real information?

Originally posted by hooper


Hold on a minute - how do you know what the traget[sic] was? Did you brief the hijackers?

Are you saying the WTC and the Pentagon weren't their targets?

Perhaps they were targeting 3 Mile Island in Harrisburg, PA, but they missed by hundreds of miles?


Hooper, why do you evade this part of the question?

Can you find us one aircraft which is positively identified to have exceeded its Vmo by 120-150 knots, it's maneuvering speed by 220 knots, pulled G's, and was controllable?

Since you have so much faith in the OS, are you willing to try it? In any airplane, at any altitude? Perhaps you can get weedwhacker to be the pilot.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

I am sure that the CIT guys and the folks at Pffffft appreciate the free advertisement, but do you actually have any real information?

NTSB data and Pentagon Police Officers aren't "real"?

second line.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Witnesses - Used in a court of law daily

Yes, witnesses interviewed by professionals - not some internet conspiracy jockeys.

These are also the "pros" that dismissed Gary Bauer's statement essentialy because he's a Republican.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Originally posted by hooper

Are you saying the WTC and the Pentagon weren't their targets?

Perhaps they were targeting 3 Mile Island in Harrisburg, PA, but they missed by hundreds of miles?
Hooper, why do you evade this part of the question?

Since you have so much faith in the OS, are you willing to try it? In any airplane, at any altitude? Perhaps you can get weedwhacker to be the pilot.

Answer the question - how do you know what the target was within 30'? Did you brief the hijackers?

Can you find us one aircraft which is positively identified to have exceeded its Vmo by 120-150 knots, it's maneuvering speed by 220 knots, pulled G's, and was controllable?

Yeah, the one that world trade center. Prove it didn't. Good luck with that, many have tried and all have failed. Miserably. Over and over and over again.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Witnesses - Used in a court of law daily

Yes, witnesses interviewed by professionals - not some internet conspiracy jockeys.

These are also the "pros" that dismissed Gary Bauer's statement essentialy because he's a Republican.

Hooper,

It is apparent you would rather evade the topic and attempt to derail the thread, perhaps you are going for the cherry picking award-of-the-day at your office, but please, can you stick to topic?

Again -

Can you find us one aircraft which is positively identified to have exceeded its Vmo by 120-150 knots, it's maneuvering speed by 220 knots, pulled G's, and was controllable?

Are you willing to try it?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

NTSB data

Which confirms the events of 9/11, that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and Flight 93 crashed with all souls aboard near Shanksville, Pa.

and Pentagon Police Officers aren't "real"?

Yeah, they're real alright. And real sure that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by hooper
Yeah, the one that world trade center. Prove it didn't. Good luck with that, many have tried and all have failed. Miserably. Over and over and over again.

Typical logical fallacy. Hooper, click and learn.

Click


Please provide proof that the aircraft which hit the WTC were positively identified as N612UA and N334AA, and were standard 767's.

Start with providing the parts to the numerous highly trained Aircraft Accident Investigators waiting at Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Can you find us one aircraft which is positively identified to have exceeded its Vmo by 120-150 knots, it's maneuvering speed by 220 knots, pulled G's, and was controllable?

Again, the one that hit the world trade center - aren't you at least paying attention?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Please provide proof that the aircraft which hit the WTC were positively identified as N612UA and N334AA, and were standard 767's.

Start with providing the parts to the numerous highly trained Aircraft Accident Investigators waiting at Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know we started playing the "parts numbers" game. I thought we were going to discuss this kind of like adults do, my mistake. So, unless somebody provides "parts numbers" to some online "experts" on a conspiracy website then you are going to assume that - what -the planes were some kind of super duper customized remote controlled aerobatic ramjets?

Originally posted by hooper
Which confirms the events of 9/11, that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon

You're wrong.

1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.
2. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.
3. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
4. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.
5. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

and Flight 93 crashed with all souls aboard near Shanksville, Pa.

You're wrong.

1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support observations.
2. All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses published by the New York Times.
3. Witness observations of approach path contradict northern approach as described by Popular Mechanics and the US Govt. Several witnesses observed the aircraft approaching from southeast over Indian Lake and from the south prior to witnessing explosion. Parts found in New Baltimore, 8 miles southeast of crater is a direct contradiction to the northern approach claimed by the US Govt.
4. Environmental Protection Agency reports no soil contamination of jet fuel after testing 5,000-6,000 yards of earth including 3 ground wells. Smoke plume photographed by a witness does not suggest a jet fuel rich explosion.
5. Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.

Yeah, they're real alright. And real sure that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

They also "bet their life" that the approaching aircraft was on a path impossible to cause the physical damage at the Pentagon, and it is corroborated by numerous other independent witnesses.

You should really check out "National Security Alert" by the Citizen Investigation Team.

Hooper -

Please provide proof that the damage at the Pentagon and the damage in Shanksville was caused by N644AA and N591UA. Please provide proof that the damage at the WTC was caused by N612UA and N334AA. Please provide proof an aircraft can exceed it's Vmo by 120-150 knots and remain controllable. Numerous highly trained Aircraft Accident Investigators are waiting.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Can you please show us proof such aircraft was N644AA AND a standard 757? Please start with providing the parts/serial numbers, parts themselves and maintenance logs. The FBI seem to be refusing access to such information for all four aircraft reportedly used on 9/11 because they themselves actually don't have it as they never positively identified any of the aircraft.

This whole parts/serial numbers bit is nothing but an intellectually dishonest game the conspiracy theorists play in order to manufacture an appearance of impropriety, and I say that for two reasons- 1) we both know you have ZERO ability to trace any such parts/serial numbers even if they did give such information to you, so such data is largely worthless to you, and 2) if you've been so hard core seduced by these conspiracy claims that you'll insist all the witnesses are disinformtion agents, the wreckage was all planted, and the black box was manufactured, then there's no way you would accept any parts/serial numbers to be legitimate either.

At the end of the day, all you're doing is dropping innuendo here. You know that and so do I.

As for your linked "witnesses" -

Witnesses List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses

Come on now, I shouldn't have to tell you that accusing eyewitnesses of being "deep cover opertives or assets implicitly planting bogus information" entirely because they're saying things you don't want to hear is being arrogant and childish. You might have had a point if they were nameless personas who gave their account and vanished, but they are all real and genuine people, such as Steve Anderson, director of communications for USA today-

"From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River.

"Tuesday morning, September 11, started out to be like any other day. The air was crisp and the sky was clear. I arrived at my office at about 6:45 a.m. I noted US Air and Delta flights taking off from Reagan National Airport. I figured the weather must be clear up the coast as the shuttle flights were taking off on time.

I made it through my morning regimen of reading five newspapers and scanning several websites. I was feeling pretty good about the fact that I had accomplished so much before the workday actually started.

I turned my attention to e-mail and then checked the newswires to see what went on in the world overnight. At about 8:50 a.m. a bulletin came across the wire stating a plane had crashed in to the World Trade Center. I turned on the television in my office and about 10 of us watched the black smoke rising above the colossal structure. The first reports said a small plane hit the tower. We all thought it must have been the result of a pilot having a heart attack.

The mood turned dark. As we watched the story it appeared that people were jumping out of windows in the burning building. We were collectively in a state of shock when we watched as a second plane slammed into the other tower of the World Trade Center.

At that moment we all knew what had happened. Terrorists had struck hard in New York. We all felt vulnerable in our own "Twin Towers" that overlook Washington, D.C. We have had several bomb threats over the years, but we never dreamed that something like this would happen.

Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye.

It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.

We didn't know what further plans the terrorists had. Were there more planes in the air? Were they headed toward us? We erred on the side of caution and told people they could leave. Nearly everyone did, including me. We went into emergency plan mode. The company staff tried to regroup in front of the Iwo Jima memorial. But as soon as we got there MPs from Ft. Myer and Arlington Police came through screaming for us to clear the area because another plane was headed that way. We couldn't get back into the building, so we sent people home to work from there. Many of our intrepid journalists stayed in the building. A good number of them have covered wars in the past and have been deployed in combat zones. They don't scare easily. But for me, all I could think about was my wife and our daughter.

The scene around the office was nothing short of pandemonium. Streets were absolutely jammed with cars and people. Many acting crazy driving on the sidewalks and threatening people who were in their way. To make matters worse, a local radio station reported that a plane had hit the USA TODAY building. I called the station and told them they were incorrect. They didn't believe me and kept on reporting it. The station even sent the story up to the radio network, which in turn reported it nationwide. Reporters in California and elsewhere were calling me to confirm the number of dead at USA TODAY.

Outbound cells were jammed, but somehow my wife, an elementary school music teacher, called me on my cell phone and I told her I was OK and that I was going to try and get home. A few minutes after that, her school's principal distributed a note to the teachers that summed up what had happened and told teachers not to discuss it, not to turn on a TV or fire up an internet connection. The note also stated that a plane had hit the USA TODAY building. Fortunately, my wife knew better. Other than that, the school had set up a system of greeters at the main doors to assist parents in picking up their children. Many parents did just that and it was all dealt with in a very orderly fashion. There was fear that some of the kids may have had parents who work at the Pentagon. While many do work at the Pentagon, it turned out none were harmed in the attack.

It took me about 90 minutes to get my car out of the immediate vicinity of my office. I was able to take back roads to my home in Reston, where I was able to work from home for the rest of the day."

-- Steve Anderson ('85), Director of Communications, USA TODAY

The author of the article you're quoting is being horribly fast and loose with his facts as Steve Anderson specifically saw the plane hit the Pentagon. He also isn't particulary hard to find, and he can be reached at [email protected]. Go ahead- send him an email and accuse him of being a ""deep cover opertives or assets implicitly planting bogus information". I triple dog dare you.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Can you find us one aircraft which is positively identified to have exceeded its Vmo by 120-150 knots, it's maneuvering speed by 220 knots, pulled G's, and was controllable?

Again, the one that hit the world trade center - aren't you at least paying attention?

Just like there has never been a steel skyscraper to collapse from fire prior to 9/11, there has never been an aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots and was controllable, nor survived.

Please provide positive identification of the aircraft which hit the south tower as N612UA with a Vmo of 360 knots.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This whole parts/serial numbers bit is nothing but an intellectually dishonest game the conspiracy theorists play in order to manufacture an appearance of impropriety, and I say that for two reasons- 1) we both know you have ZERO ability to trace any such parts/serial numbers even if they did give such information to you, so such data is largely worthless to you,

Do these people don't have such ability? (note the bold)

Jeff Latas
-Over 20 years in the USAF
--USAF Accident investigation Board President
--Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
--Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
--Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways


George Nelson
Colonel USAF (Ret.)
30 year career managing aircraft maintenance activities
Licensed commercial pilot
Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic
Aircraft accident investigator

Colonel Michael Harley USAF (ret)
Command pilot
~ 6000 Total Flight Time
T-38,T-33, T-37,T-39, C-47, U-6, Uh-1, C130A, B, E, &
prototype H, Kc-135 and B-52.
26 years commissioned. 34 Years total service USAF Accident Investigator
Instructor Accident Investigation, Embry-Riddle University
Management analyst and IG, simulator instructor,
Instructor Pilot, Standardization Evaluation Pilot,
Chief of Standardization of a Sac Wing equipped with B-52, RC-135 and Kc-135
Flew Cessna 177, Twin Bonanza, Cherokee-6
~200 hours as civilian private pilot
Newspaper columnist for 10 years, now a freelance writer

J. Randall Reinhardt
Commercial, Multi, Instrument, CFI, ATP,
Commercial Glider, Advanced/ Instrument Ground Instructor,
Turbojet Type Rating - Learjet
Flying since 1961,
8,000+ hours in civil, military and Part 25 Transport category aircraft
J.D. degree in 1972 ,
30 years practicing trial law, with a concentration in aviation related litigation, including FAA Part 91, 135, 121 and 141 accidents and FAA/NTSB matters Forensic Director for U.S. Aviation Forensics with 30 years experience in aircraft accident investigation. Former FAA Accident Prevention Specialist
Former member U.S. Unlimited Aerobatic Team with unrestricted aerobatic waiver.

Lt Col David Gapp
Qualified Accident Investigator, Accident Board President from USAF Safety School
Total Flight Time: 3000
US Air Force, Continental Airlines
Military Service: 31 years
T-37, T-38, F-4, ATR-42 (one year w/ Continental Express), then went back into the Air Force

There are tons more, but I think you get the point. At least, the readers will.

and 2) if you've been so hard core seduced by these conspiracy claims that you'll insist all the witnesses are disinformtion agents,

Please quote where I claimed "all witnesses are disinformation agents".

Thanks.

The rest of your post is typical information overload and off topic.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA



Well, I am glad I gave you the oppurtunity to get all that nonsense out of your system. Each and every one of the truther talking points you just regurgitated is, well, complete nonsense. So, now, rather than take those all apart for maybe the ten thousandth time, well just let them be and see if the media picks up on those startling revelations. But for the fun of it lets take just one, which I think is a good example of very typical conspiracy approach to reality:

5. Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.

1) Exactly what "gov't story" are you refering to?
2) Isn't the info on the FDR the "gov't story"?
3) Since when is 40 degrees almost vertical? I hope you have nothing to do with flying planes!!
4) Where are you getting your crater suggestions? There are very preccise formulas for calculating crater formations, I assume you used those would you like to show us your work?

Originally posted by hooper
1) Exactly what "gov't story" are you refering to?
2) Isn't the info on the FDR the "gov't story"?
3) Since when is 40 degrees almost vertical? I hope you have nothing to do with flying planes!!
4) Where are you getting your crater suggestions? There are very preccise formulas for calculating crater formations, I assume you used those would you like to show us your work?

I'll answer yours when you answer mine.

Here they are again.

Please provide proof that the damage at the Pentagon and the damage in Shanksville was caused by N644AA and N591UA. Please provide proof that the damage at the WTC was caused by N612UA and N334AA. Please provide proof an aircraft can exceed it's Vmo by 120-150 knots and remain controllable. Numerous highly trained Aircraft Accident Investigators are waiting.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Just like there has never been a steel skyscraper to collapse from fire prior to 9/11,

For the what, ten millionth time, the 9/11 towers did not collapse from fire alone. Lets just call that response number 1A.

there has never been an aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots and was controllable, nor survived.

Wow. That is a heck of a statement. Now prove it. Prove that not one aircraft, in all of aviation history, never exceeded what you think is its maximum operating speed by 150 knots and was controlled. Please provide complete documentation for all flights in all the history of manned aircraft.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


SNORE...

The rhetoric never alters, does it...towing the "Party Line" all the way until impact, huh?

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
You're wrong.

Well...at least you get some things right! I mean, that you're wrong (and I suspect you know it very, very well...why continue this charade, hmmmmm?)

Let's take yet another jaunt down the "PfT" memory lane...or is it the needle stuck on a scratched LP record?? Guess both are apt enough....:

1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

Been over this countless times --- YES it does.

2. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

FALSE. Very, very old news, been done to death, years ago, in these very threads at ATS! Nice try, but beating a no longer breathing equine comes to my mind...

3. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.

Pure, unadulterated balderdash! Every bit of the so-called "examination and detailed study" --- or whatever terms were used by wither --[Hah! Meant to write "either", but 'wither' is a somewhat Freudian happenstance, n'est pas?]/or PfT and CIT, in concert, or separately, ad infinitum, forever and ever, double-dog-dare you, etc....

( "Garbage in, Garbage out" is how the old computer-'ese' "techie" phrase used to go.... )

4. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

FALSE!

And...

5. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

Bam!...yet again, falsamundo.


As I said, it bears repeating:

The junk coming out of BOTH "CIT" and "PfT" aren't worthy of consideration because....well, because they are JUNK.

Nice try, though...you're dedicated to the BS, have to hand you that.

NOW....what about the (admittedly not a direct) question I mentioned a few pages back???

IF this so-called "information" and these so-called "revelations" are SO convincing....WHY is the membership roster at "PfT" (for example) so SMALL??

I mean....the "membership" roster is mostly comprised of Cessna 150 student pilots, and the occasional mechanic (not that there's anything wrong with them...there are even some "aviation enthusiasts" who ADMIT they've never flown an airplane!!! It just beggars credulity that the claims of "The List Grows" have any reliable yardstick indication to the quality of that "list"...)


What I'm trying to say is --- the only people being fooled are those who DO NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY experience in the airplanes (B-757/767), and in airline operations, and in large jets in general to be able to smell the BS "smoke and mirrors" that emanates from the multitude of "PfT" 'junque' ( that's the quasi-French spin, just made it up...pronounced "junk-K", if you will ).


I cannot fathom the motivation (other than what I suspect, and THAT should be obvious once a thorough study of various websites is undertaken) is in persisting in this nonsense.

"PfT" has been shown to have POOR analytical methods, and has "massaged" all data to fit their pet biases --- again, for motivations that, on the surface at least, seem to be less than admirable. I.E., the stated "search for truth" seems to take a backseat to the "search for almighty $$$".

~~~~~~~

Decided to post an image that best seems to describe the situational awareness abilities displayed by the "crew" over at "PilotsFor9/11Truth":



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c521aaf90993.jpg[/atsimg]


(It is up in my Top Ten, too...of favorite airliner/airplane flying funnies....)













[edit on 23 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Please provide proof that the damage at the Pentagon and the damage in Shanksville was caused by N644AA and N591UA.

You want proof - got the best "parts numbers" proof you can get - the remains of the last known human occupants of both those craft were found at the crash scenes. Doesn't get any better. Perfectly unique identifiers.

Please provide proof that the damage at the WTC was caused by N612UA and N334AA.

I'll assume those are the craft involved in flights 11 and 175. Here's proof - if they weren't tell me where they went to.

Please provide proof an aircraft can exceed it's Vmo by 120-150 knots and remain controllable.

Which aircraft are you talking about? What's contollable?

Numerous highly trained Aircraft Accident Investigators are waiting.[/quot]

I numerously highly trained doubt that.

Originally posted by hooper

For the what, ten millionth time, the 9/11 towers did not collapse from fire alone. Lets just call that response number 1A.

The NIST disagrees with you.

Click and learn.

Click

Prove that not one aircraft, in all of aviation history, never exceeded what you think is its maximum operating speed by 150 knots and was controlled. Please provide complete documentation for all flights in all the history of manned aircraft.

Seems you didn't click the link I provided for you WRT Logical Fallacies - Here it is again -

Prove A Negative

Once again hooper - please stop evading -

Please provide proof that the damage at the Pentagon and the damage in Shanksville was caused by N644AA and N591UA. Please provide proof that the damage at the WTC was caused by N612UA and N334AA. Please provide proof an aircraft can exceed it's Vmo by 120-150 knots and remain controllable. Numerous highly trained Aircraft Accident Investigators are waiting.


[edit on 23-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]