9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Lets see you say radar showed 510 knots and according to the graph the aircraft should have structural failure you saw it, I saw it ,did it fail NO ,well not until it struck the building.

Engineers and safety factors

Originally posted by snapperski
and i do belive there is well over 2 TRILLION dollars missing unaccounted for at the time of the 9/11 event...i think that might cover this theory.

You really should not believe the damn fool conspiracy sites, they just post lies.
For the facts behind the "missing" money see www.911myths.com...

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by snapperski
and i do belive there is well over 2 TRILLION dollars missing unaccounted for at the time of the 9/11 event...i think that might cover this theory.

You really should not believe the damn fool conspiracy sites, they just post lies.
For the facts behind the "missing" money see www.911myths.com...

edit on 7/11/10 by dereks because: (no reason given)

once again useing that pathectic 9/11myths site as your source...

You really should not believe the damn fool TRUSTER sites.

Originally posted by snapperski

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by snapperski
and i do belive there is well over 2 TRILLION dollars missing unaccounted for at the time of the 9/11 event...i think that might cover this theory.

You really should not believe the damn fool conspiracy sites, they just post lies.
For the facts behind the "missing" money see www.911myths.com...

edit on 7/11/10 by dereks because: (no reason given)

once again useing that pathectic 9/11myths site as your source...

You really should not believe the damn fool TRUSTER sites.

Pot and kettle there mate I think what expetise DO you have that helps you comment on this are you

1) a pilot
2) an engineer
3) architect etc ,etc

DO you have any skill which would help you work out what happened or you thought happened please dont say I have researched it

reply to post by wmd_2008

if you read my posts amigo,you will see i don't claim to be the 9/11 guru mastermind allseeing eye like some people in these 9/11 threads?(not saying any names but i think we all know who i'm talking about),i'm just a normal guy on the street,looking for answers,to question's that are not being answered..

like i've said many times,lets get the real scientist and engineers to investigate this,put up for public scutiny,why are you so afraid of this....it more then likely the of the biggest crimes in history if you take into account the fallout from that day,that is still rageing on as we type in this forum,all these people that have died,and your trying to convince me to let it go,and to belive what your telling me,after the whole 9/11 Comission was one of the biggest shambles of a investigation in modern times....(the mind boggles)

and i for one will not be happy untill a full proper public indenpendent inquiry takes place.

Interesting how 911Myths.com (a rather appropriate name for the site) is powered by Media Wiki. So, let's go to the "About 911 Myths" page and see who is really behind this site, which looks like it was designed by a two year old.

www.911myths.com...

Aaaahhh yes, it appears that credible individual [email protected] is behind this ugly and horrid looking site. No more information on Mr. Mike, just an email address.

Being the gullible idiot that I am, I'm sold...it looks like that $2.3 trillion didn't go to waste and was put to good use after all...like framing a bunch of elusive turbans who live in caves and are able to bring the most powerful country down to its knees by using 19 ragtag diminutive boxcutter wielding patsies.

Thanks 911myths for clearing that up. Whatever would we do without you?

“Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”

"How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”

Obviously, you have never personally experienced the miracle and the power of prayer. Who needs to be a professional skilled pilot when the man upstairs can be your autopilot who guides you to your final destination? Besides, these guys were too busy praying to worry about something so trivial as flying (fake) airplanes.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


So your argument against the site is to use fallacy about the way it looks and your opinions on the creator. Absolutely nothing is actually said about the content except your sarcastic remarks.

I took a look at that 911 myths site, and well, the first thing I noticed was that there were sources everywhere. It really helped back things up!

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Thank you SphinxMontreal for digging about Mr. Mike it appears Mr. Mike doesn’t want to be known which opens the door to many assumptions to why the author is hiding. I
Believe it is because he has deliberately told many lies. Perhaps he thinks he is clever by taking advantage of people who have not done much research on the 911 events.

I was able to do a little more research on the registry by using Whois Result and it is interesting to know the true owners do not want to be found, or known. I suppose if the owners’ goal was to spread disinformation in defending the OS of 911. 911myths probably did not want anyone holding them accountable for their disinformation. All I can say is 911myths went through a grate deal of length to hide themselves for whatever reason. If 911myths had told the truth then I believe there would be no reason to hide.
Go to:
http//www.register.com/whois.rcmx

911Myths is a proven disinformation website.

9/11 Myths has long been a favorite resource for skeptics and debunkers alike. Its author, Mike Williams, has compiled a collection of straw men, coupled with many distorted interpretations of valid claims. While many of Mike’s “takes” can be dismissed as patently absurd by most of us, his slimy nature and style of addressing these can be deceptive to those who are new to this material and haven’t had time to do their research. Therefore, I think it’s important that we have a thread dedicated to debunking 9/11 Myths. It’s a huge website and so I don’t know if I will ever have the time to write an entire debunk, however, if we all work together on this we’ll have Mike’s site debunked in no time!

pilotsfor911truth.org...

This is just one of the many facts on this page uncovered by people who have thoroughly done their research on many of the 911 events.
Many of these people showed how and where 911myths lied about some of their information and these people posted credible sources to back their findings.

The only people who know that 911myths is a disinformation website are the one’s who have done their research. The skeptics and debunkers love this website because the author hands these people disinformation tools. However it doesn’t take long to destroy the lies by using science and credible sources. Those that can’t see through these lies have not done any real research and like what this author says because he supports the OS fairytales. In my opinion, 911myths prays on ignorant people in hoping that they will spread the 911myths disinformation, half truth, distortions and outright lies. As we can see 911myths information has been used repeatedly by many bloggers right here on ATS and many of these skeptics stand by 911myths proven lies.

If you lot wanted to know who Mike Williams is, you could always register at JREF and send him a PM through there, his username is MikeW.

Or, you could try refuting what he is writing, instead of trying to dig up some nefarious dirt on him so you can ignore any evidence that opposes your pet theories.

ETA: And since I forgot, here's what he's saying himself about the use of 911myths as an authority on anything:

But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less.

I wont speak for a certain site, or their claims about aircraft speeds but I will comment on the remote control arguement taking place:

On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base
(Edwards, California), made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. It then began a descent-to-landing
to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake. Final approach was along the roughly 3.8-degree
glide slope.

Source
www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

Remote control capability has been around since the 70's; it's nothing new. Get over it.

Just check out Operation Northwoods for additional proof of remote control capabilty.

reply to post by roboe

If you lot wanted to know who Mike Williams is, you could always register at JREF and send him a PM through there, his username is MikeW.

And you’re proof that this MikeW are the same as Mike from911myths are what?
I have check out this dissinformationist and I stand by my results, unless you can prove me wrong. Just how many dissinfo websites does this Mike have?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by SphinxMontreal

 

Thank you SphinxMontreal for digging about Mr. Mike it appears Mr. Mike doesn’t want to be known which opens the door to many assumptions to why the author is hiding. I
Believe it is because he has deliberately told many lies. Perhaps he thinks he is clever by taking advantage of people who have not done much research on the 911 events.

I was able to do a little more research on the registry by using Whois Result and it is interesting to know the true owners do not want to be found, or known. I suppose if the owners’ goal was to spread disinformation in defending the OS of 911. 911myths probably did not want anyone holding them accountable for their disinformation. All I can say is 911myths went through a grate deal of length to hide themselves for whatever reason. If 911myths had told the truth then I believe there would be no reason to hide.
Go to:
http//www.register.com/whois.rcmx

911Myths is a proven disinformation website.

9/11 Myths has long been a favorite resource for skeptics and debunkers alike. Its author, Mike Williams, has compiled a collection of straw men, coupled with many distorted interpretations of valid claims. While many of Mike’s “takes” can be dismissed as patently absurd by most of us, his slimy nature and style of addressing these can be deceptive to those who are new to this material and haven’t had time to do their research. Therefore, I think it’s important that we have a thread dedicated to debunking 9/11 Myths. It’s a huge website and so I don’t know if I will ever have the time to write an entire debunk, however, if we all work together on this we’ll have Mike’s site debunked in no time!

pilotsfor911truth.org...

This is just one of the many facts on this page uncovered by people who have thoroughly done their research on many of the 911 events.
Many of these people showed how and where 911myths lied about some of their information and these people posted credible sources to back their findings.

The only people who know that 911myths is a disinformation website are the one’s who have done their research. The skeptics and debunkers love this website because the author hands these people disinformation tools. However it doesn’t take long to destroy the lies by using science and credible sources. Those that can’t see through these lies have not done any real research and like what this author says because he supports the OS fairytales. In my opinion, 911myths prays on ignorant people in hoping that they will spread the 911myths disinformation, half truth, distortions and outright lies. As we can see 911myths information has been used repeatedly by many bloggers right here on ATS and many of these skeptics stand by 911myths proven lies.

edit on 7-11-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)

just want to say great work impressme ,and as i've suspected all along,and have been saying for a while now,9/11myths website...is just that a myth..and i for one will not treat this site as a credible source for information...so to the same old de-bunker crew..stop quoteing from there...a site run by invisible people does not hold weight.

so as dave/dereks like to keep saying...don't belive those damn truster websites...

reply to post by snapperski


Lets see OS planes hijacked crashed into building fire/structural damage and then they collapse the other option false planes,people kidnapped/murdered,explosives planted in building and a government willing to risk killing thousands of people many nationals of other countries and making it easy for internet BUILDING EXPERTS like yourself to spot COME ON what sound more far fetched.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by roboe

 

If you lot wanted to know who Mike Williams is, you could always register at JREF and send him a PM through there, his username is MikeW.

And you’re proof that this MikeW are the same as Mike from911myths are what?
I have check out this dissinformationist and I stand by my results, unless you can prove me wrong. Just how many dissinfo websites does this Mike have?

edit on 8-11-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)

Common knowledge, not to mention he's quite open about it.

Like I said (and like he says), check it out yourself. You can register at JREF or you can send him an email.

Originally posted by cutout23
“Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”

What steeply banked 180 degree turn You SAID above SOME MANAGED IT So there is a chance however slim that a rookie could have done it.

reply to post by cutout23


Why was this paragraph (which I shortened somewhat, from your original post) in "quotes"?? Who are you quoting?

"....several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast roll-out and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’...."

....because, if you're basing any of your opinions on that piece of junk set of statements, then you are being conned...by whomever you "quoted".

NOT ONE of the Boeing 767s that impacted the WTC Towers flew their attack approaches in the way described. That "test" (cough*cough) was set up to FAIL!! Classic strawman if I ever saw one!

Presuming, of course, that their term "steeply" banked implies more than about 30-35 degrees. What's more, the final impact speed was NOT MAINTAINED during any turns to line up the final attack course. The excessive speeds were attained by mostly wings level, in a descent, with full thrust applied. Only minor bank angles were used, to correct the aim. United 175, we see AT THE LAST SPLIT SECOND, he rolled more to the left, as he saw he was slightly off-center.

Oh, and the "500 MPH" statement?? Well, that's peculiar....unless he was altering his example for a non-pilot audience...since airplanes nowadays..and YES, airliners...reference speeds in KNOTS, not statute MPH.

"500 MPH" is very close to 435 knots. The published and certificated Vmo is 360 kts. The airspeed indicator itself has a range that goes up to 450 knots. Here's a (rather crappy) but best I found online quickly, a photo of a typical Boeing airspeed indicator (this one looks to be from a 737, because of the color of the bezel. The 757/767 instrument panels are a light tan/light brown color, 737s are the bluish gray):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8d2f3ed29ec9.jpg[/atsimg]

This one appears to have been removed from the panel, then photographed..so there is no power to it, hence the orange warning flags (they retract out of view when the data is considered valid).

Now, the "quoted" person claims they did this in the Sim? At 435 knots?

I thought I'd heard that a certain "9/11 conspiracy believing" pilot's group have mentioned that in their "experience" in Simulators, the software in the computer would "crash" the Sim when slightly exceeding Vmo. Of course, that sort of thing will vary depending on the Simulator manufacturer, and date of production, and programming, a I suppose....

Still, there sure are a lot of "claims", and as I said, a scattering of straw, going on. AND, a lot of fast and loose with the "truth"......

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Regarding the different final estimated speeds for UA 175 I really don't have a bias towards any particular one. I just note there are different ones and, in an ideal world, they should concur. They might all be wrong for all I know. However, it appears that you have a bias to the highest one.

Just as a point of clarification, can you confirm or otherwise that AA 11 is out of this discussion ? One minute it seems to be out on account of a modest 425/430 knots final speed ( and that by radar ) and then you slip it back in. I just think it would be helpful if we could be clear whether you are talking about both or just UA 175.

reply to post by impressme


So I shouldn't believe an anonymous person the internet (Mike at 911 myths) because an anonymous person on the internet (you) says so?

Apparently this is good enough for snapperski. But then I think he may be a little bit biased...