Guided Planes: Fact or Fiction? [Archive]

View Full Version : Guided Planes: Fact or Fiction?

Pages : [1] 2

Sizzler

18th July 2008, 11:08 PM

A few months ago I tried to put together a "CD-possibility" hypothesis. I was attempting to demonstrate that CD-CT was at least possible. I however abandoned the hypothesis for the following reason:

(recap)

1. CD-CT depends on the the hijackers hitting the buildings, most likely at very precise locations.

2. Human hijackers are not dependable enough. If they failed to hijack the planes, or take control, or find their destination, or hit it in a precise manner, the conspiracy would have failed, perhaps leaving it vulnerable to detection. Human hijackers are too much of a gamble.

Therefore, any reasonable CT would need non-human hijackers, or guided technology. In my limited research (if you want to call it that) on the internet, I could not find anything remotely (excuse the pun) convincing.

Until now...

http://911blogger.com/node/16702

I certainly don't have the expertise to analyze this, but I'm sure some of you do. Let me know what you think.

Is the following statement incorrect?

Although this doesn't prove 9-11 was and inside job, it does offer one possible explanation for how the planes could have been precisely brought to their targets. (paraphrased from a poster on 9-11 blogger)

e^n

18th July 2008, 11:52 PM

Hello Sizzler
There's nothing particularly impossible in the post at 911blogger, although I don't think they realise how the control surfaces in relatively older planes operate. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the pilots and manuevers involved were not spectacular and were well within the range of a poor to moderately skilled pilot.

For this reason, many alternatives are possible but all raise more questions than they answer. Did the pilots not notice these changes to their aircraft, were all the phone calls from the planes faked etc?

It's also worth bearing in mind the stated accuracy of WAAS
The system demonstrated one to two meters horizontal accuracy and two to three meters vertical accuracy throughout the contiguous United States
This is probably not accurate enough. 3 metres is nearly an entire WTC floor and there are a few caveats to getting the accuracy they describe also.

R.Mackey

19th July 2008, 12:32 AM

Fiction. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107252) No system then available, and none today, would meet the requirements.

And even with a system (one that no pilot or maintainer could detect) that could hit its target at those speeds and with millimeter accuracy, you still can't coordinate the attack. Uncertainties in where furniture is, or the precise failure strain of materials, is enough to radically change the damage path. See the Purdue results.

This line of reasoning is absolutely idiotic.

Myriad

19th July 2008, 06:48 AM

The guided landing systems operate through the plane's autopilot. But the aviation experts among us make a quite a cogent argument that there is no way for the autopilot to override the pilot's control on an airplane with hydraulic flight systems, without extensive modifications that would need extensive testing and could not go undetected by maintenance and flight crews.

Note that the one reference about overriding pilot control in the article is to a patent for the general idea, filed shortly after 9/11, no doubt inspired by wishful ("If only there had been a button that would...") thinking about the events. No evidence at all that such a system existed then or exists now.

(Do you think that the pilots' unions might not be pleased at the prospect of a system that, if it malfunctioned, could kill everyone on an otherwise perfectly sound aircraft by taking pilot control away? That years if not decades of testing and negotiation would be required to get such a system implemented? Engineers have been talking about automatic automobile driving systems since the 60's or earlier; 50 years later, would you want the first production model installed in your car?)

So, the guided planes would still need hijackers to take out the pilots and prevent anyone else from operating the controls, and the hijackers went to great effort (by far the most challenging part of their operation) to include trained suicide pilots in their number. Just in case the guided approach system didn't work, perhaps? Or if the hijackings were an inside job, perhaps there weren't enough trained pilots among the special forces willing to kill themselves for the sake of committing treason, so they relied on GPS guidance systems instead? Either way, supposedly this was to guarantee that the planes struck in the exact correct places relative to the pre-existing "wired" floors, so that a collapse could be caused that all the available science shows was inevitable, or at least extremely likely to happen anyway, from collision damage and fire. I'm not seeing a plausible scenario in all this.

Respectfully,
Myriad

ktesibios

19th July 2008, 09:20 AM

(Do you think that the pilots' unions might not be pleased at the prospect of a system that, if it malfunctioned, could kill everyone on an otherwise perfectly sound aircraft by taking pilot control away? That years if not decades of testing and negotiation would be required to get such a system implemented? Engineers have been talking about automatic automobile driving systems since the 60's or earlier; 50 years later, would you want the first production model installed in your car?)

A most cogent insight. There are some other implications for the prospect of keeping such a system secret until you happen to need to crash airliners into a couple of buildings.

As Myriad points out, we're talking about a system which, if it failed, could reasonably be expected to cause a crash. In the regulatory environment airlines operate in, regular testing and maintenance of that system wouldn't be up to the airlines, it would be mandatory- as in "do this or you don't fly in the USA". To implement those inevitable regulations means that:

1. Specialized test equipment must be designed, tested, approved, manufactured and distributed to airline maintenance facilities.

2. Detailed test procedures must be written, approved, published and distributed.

3. Technicians must be trained and certified to carry out the work.

If that doesn't put enough people "in the know" to make keeping the remote-takeover system secret impossible, companies operating in heavily regulated industries commonly employ entire departments of people whose job is regulatory compliance- keeping up to date on the latest in law and regulation affecting their business and making sure their management knows exactly what they have to do to stay in compliance with the law.

So when the FAA directives concerning testing and maintenance of the auto-takeover system come down, you're going to wind up with a lot of paperpushers and lawyers and things knowing all about it.

This is not a good recipe for secrecy.

In addition, imagine that you have airplanes that can actually fly themselves safely home even without a pilot, and thwart a hijacker's ability to control them. Is that a feature you would want to keep secret?

I think not. You would, in fact, want to publicize the bejesus out of it- both to reassure the customers by letting them know that even if the entire flight crew is dead, they will still get safely back to the ground and to deter prospective hijackers by letting them know that they can't take the plane to anywhere it's not supposed to go.

It's no surprise that conspiracy fantasists are uniformly pretty clueless about technology. I do still wonder why it is that their fantasies are also so dramaturgically awful.

SaiGirl

19th July 2008, 09:38 AM

MQ-1 PREDATOR
CENTAF Airpower Summary for April 9, 2007
Mission
The MQ-1 Predator is a medium-altitude, long-endurance, remotely piloted aircraft. The MQ-1's primary mission is interdiction and conducting armed reconnaissance against critical, perishable targets. When the MQ-1 is not actively pursuing its primary mission, it acts as the Joint Forces Air Component Commander-owned theater asset for reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition in support of the Joint Forces commander.
Features
The MQ-1 Predator is a system, not just an aircraft. A fully operational system consists of four aircraft (with sensors), a ground control station, a Predator Primary Satellite Link, and approximately 55 personnel for deployed 24-hour operations.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=122

Be sure to credit the source when you have copied and pasted information. If you re-read your Membership Agreement, you will see Rule 4: You will not post "copyright-protected1" material in its entirety, including "hotlinking2" to images or other media.

SaiGirl

19th July 2008, 09:40 AM

The Global Hawk, a high-altitude, pilotless surveillance aircraft, was designed by Ryan Aeronautical, the same California company that provided Charles Lindbergh with the Spirit of St. Louis. Northrop Grumman acquired the company in 1999.
In April of this year, the Global Hawk made history itself. Piloted by an onboard computer, it rolled down the runway at Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed 25 hours later in southern Australia without a hitch.
A special Kodak digital camera in Global Hawk's nose takes amazingly close-up, nearly real-time photos of the ground from high altitudes. From 56,000 feet, its video devices picked up fire extinguishers lying next to a parked F/A-18 fighter.

~enigma~

19th July 2008, 09:44 AM

pomeroo

19th July 2008, 12:23 PM

Whenever a conspiracy liar recycles the remote-controlled bushwah, I feel obligated to pay tribute to Apathoid's splendid paper:

http://911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

Although it is much shorter, fantasists avoid reading it with the same determination they display in avoiding reading Mackey's white paper.

Sizzler

20th July 2008, 03:56 AM

Fiction. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107252) No system then available, and none today, would meet the requirements.

I guess it depends on what one designates requirements.

I personally think the system would have to override the pilot control, and guide the planes into their targets. I don't think +/- a few meters is unreasonable considering they can be landed with this kind of accuracy.

And even with a system (one that no pilot or maintainer could detect) that could hit its target at those speeds and with millimeter accuracy, you still can't coordinate the attack. Uncertainties in where furniture is, or the precise failure strain of materials, is enough to radically change the damage path. See the Purdue results.

I don't personally see this argument convincing. I think it is reasonable to assume that possible perps could engineer an event that would be flexible enough to deal with +/- a few meters.

WTC 1 and 2 were hit in very different locations. Both areas of damage responded in similar ways (no partial collapse upon impact) and the damage/fire, was limited to a few floors.

This line of reasoning is absolutely idiotic.

Well then. I guess I have been told:jaw-dropp

Sizzler

20th July 2008, 04:07 AM

So, the guided planes would still need hijackers to take out the pilots and prevent anyone else from operating the controls, and the hijackers went to great effort (by far the most challenging part of their operation) to include trained suicide pilots in their number. Just in case the guided approach system didn't work, perhaps? Or if the hijackings were an inside job, perhaps there weren't enough trained pilots among the special forces willing to kill themselves for the sake of committing treason, so they relied on GPS guidance systems instead? Either way, supposedly this was to guarantee that the planes struck in the exact correct places relative to the pre-existing "wired" floors, so that a collapse could be caused that all the available science shows was inevitable, or at least extremely likely to happen anyway, from collision damage and fire. I'm not seeing a plausible scenario in all this.

Respectfully,
Myriad

This is hindsight though. Perhaps we know now, but the science (NIST, Bazant et al.) occurred after 9-11.

ps. could you bump the thread about your investigation suggestion. cheers.

Sizzler

20th July 2008, 04:09 AM

Foolmewunz

20th July 2008, 04:55 AM

Link wasn't about remote control.

Either it's been fixed or you are wrong. Try clicking again.

Sizzler

20th July 2008, 07:38 AM

Either it's been fixed or you are wrong. Try clicking again.

link is to GPS guided autopilot systems

~enigma~

20th July 2008, 07:42 AM

link is to GPS guided autopilot systems
Really? The title of the paper is "Remote Takeover on 9/11: A Critical Analysis". If you think it is wrong or not applicable, please show us all how.

fuelair

20th July 2008, 10:07 AM

Are there guided (from a distance) planes? Certainly.
Is that related in the slightest way to the events of 9/11/01? Of course not!

Cl1mh4224rd

20th July 2008, 10:39 AM

This is hindsight though. Perhaps we know now, but the science (NIST, Bazant et al.) occurred after 9-11.

You say that as if the results might have been different before 9/11. Or perhaps you're casting doubt about the results because that sort of investigation wasn't done before 9/11. I can't tell. Either one is pretty bad, though.

R.Mackey

20th July 2008, 01:02 PM

I personally think the system would have to override the pilot control, and guide the planes into their targets. I don't think +/- a few meters is unreasonable considering they can be landed with this kind of accuracy.

And as I said in the other thread I linked, this is wrong. Do you know how AutoLand works? Do you know what would happen if you tried to use its radio positioning system at 400+ knots?

It wouldn't work, that's what.

In the other thread, I show the only reasonable way to do it with current technology. It's not easy and it doesn't involve ALS at all.

I don't personally see this argument convincing. I think it is reasonable to assume that possible perps could engineer an event that would be flexible enough to deal with +/- a few meters.

Nope. The Purdue simulations prove that, with the exact same impact parameters, you get as much as 100% uncertainty in the number of core columns failed depending on the precise failure strain of the material. It's a very chaotic and unstable event.

Explosives, therefore, would have to work regardless of exactly how much damage occurred, or where exactly the plane hit. You therefore gain absolutely nothing by increasing the precision of the impact.

This is true even if we overlook the fact that no bombs went off at initiation. You might well recall that you tried, and failed, to come up with even a partial hypothesis of how explosives could result in the initiation behavior seen in both Towers. And that relaxes the absence of blast and shock in the audio and seismic record. And that relaxes the question of how they survived the fires. Etc.

WTC 1 and 2 were hit in very different locations. Both areas of damage responded in similar ways (no partial collapse upon impact) and the damage/fire, was limited to a few floors.

Yup. And the structural modeling explains why. No bombs required. No precision impact required. QED.

Well then. I guess I have been told:jaw-dropp

You guess correctly.

pomeroo

20th July 2008, 01:43 PM

Link wasn't about remote control.

Gee, I'm going to have to disagree.

Sizzler

20th July 2008, 11:58 PM

Really? The title of the paper is "Remote Takeover on 9/11: A Critical Analysis". If you think it is wrong or not applicable, please show us all how.

This is semantics. I withdraw my first comment.

Sizzler

20th July 2008, 11:59 PM

Gee, I'm going to have to disagree.

Yes. Semantics got the best of me. I withdraw my statement.

Sizzler

21st July 2008, 12:03 AM

You say that as if the results might have been different before 9/11. Or perhaps you're casting doubt about the results because that sort of investigation wasn't done before 9/11. I can't tell. Either one is pretty bad, though.

I'm not implying either. My claim is that all known science that points to inevitable collapse was conducted after 9-11. In context with Myriad's post, possible perps would not have access to such studies, and thus, would not know that collapse would be inevitable.

pomeroo

21st July 2008, 12:17 AM

Yes. Semantics got the best of me. I withdraw my statement.

I appreciate your frankness. Now, tell us what Apathoid gets wrong.

Jonnyclueless

21st July 2008, 12:37 AM

So your claiming that the planes at the WTC were either global hawks or predators? I claim that I make Bill Gates look like a pauper...

Actually it was a hot air balloon (remote control of course, duh) which explains the melted steel too.

Jonnyclueless

21st July 2008, 12:38 AM

Say, how about some kind of guidance system that relies on someone pointing a laser at the target?

Sizzler

21st July 2008, 12:47 AM

And as I said in the other thread I linked, this is wrong. Do you know how AutoLand works? Do you know what would happen if you tried to use its radio positioning system at 400+ knots?

It wouldn't work, that's what.

In the other thread, I show the only reasonable way to do it with current technology. It's not easy and it doesn't involve ALS at all.

Are you saying using the technology listed in the link I provided that it would be impossible to guide a plane into a WTC building with +/- 3 meters accuracy?

Nope. The Purdue simulations prove that, with the exact same impact parameters, you get as much as 100% uncertainty in the number of core columns failed depending on the precise failure strain of the material. It's a very chaotic and unstable event.

Still not convincing. I don't see why the upper floors and lower floors could'nt have been prepped for CD, leaving 4 floors (+/-) as the crash zone unprepped for CD. The upper rigging and lower rigging could have been independently set up. Thus, no wiring going through the crash zone.

Therefor the plane would have to hit the "crash zone", an area of about 4 floors. Who cares what happens within those 4 floors. Who cares which columns break. What is important is what is going to happen above and then below where the CD prep is.

This is true even if we overlook the fact that no bombs went off at initiation. You might well recall that you tried, and failed, to come up with even a partial hypothesis of how explosives could result in the initiation behavior seen in both Towers. And that relaxes the absence of blast and shock in the audio and seismic record. And that relaxes the question of how they survived the fires. Etc.

Yes, well, this is a different matter all together.:o

funk de fino

21st July 2008, 02:01 AM

Are you saying using the technology listed in the link I provided that it would be impossible to guide a plane into a WTC building with +/- 3 meters accuracy?

If the planes are not fly by wire your theory is bunk. To override a manual input on a stick by a pilot would take major modifications.

1. Who would do this?
2. How would the maintenance crew and flight crew not notice this?
3. Why did the pilots never mention any of this in radio comms or CVR transcripts?
4. Why was there sounds of struggles with hijackers in CVR transcripts and also hijackers voices over the radio comms?

I would walk away from this one now if I were you, it is laughable.

Sizzler

21st July 2008, 04:03 AM

If the planes are not fly by wire your theory is bunk. To override a manual input on a stick by a pilot would take major modifications.

1. Who would do this?
2. How would the maintenance crew and flight crew not notice this?
3. Why did the pilots never mention any of this in radio comms or CVR transcripts?
4. Why was there sounds of struggles with hijackers in CVR transcripts and also hijackers voices over the radio comms?

I would walk away from this one now if I were you, it is laughable.

What is fly by wire? (not ignoring the rest of your post)

pomeroo

21st July 2008, 04:14 AM

What is fly by wire? (not ignoring the rest of your post)

You could attempt to read Apathoid's paper.

21st July 2008, 06:00 AM

Fly-by-wire is electronic controls, as opposed to manual controls.

i.e. control input activates servo mechanism to move control surfaces using electricity, instead of being directly connected to control surfaces by wire (mechanical link, think of bicycle brakes) or hydraulics.

The above information is off the top of my head, but I did a quick Google search for you.
Here's the Wikipedia page on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_control_systems#Fly-by-wire_.28FBW.29_control_systems). You can read it or not, but it basically says the same thinkg I do.

funk de fino

21st July 2008, 06:20 AM

What is fly by wire? (not ignoring the rest of your post)

see post 29 and 30

gumboot

21st July 2008, 07:22 AM

I'm not implying either. My claim is that all known science that points to inevitable collapse was conducted after 9-11. In context with Myriad's post, possible perps would not have access to such studies, and thus, would not know that collapse would be inevitable.

This is a texas sharpshooter fallacy. The perpetrators' access to studies re: building collapse is only relevant if it is the perpetrators' intentions to make the buildings collapse.

As you know, Al Qaeda are believed to be the perpetrators, and as you should know, Al Qaeda did not expect the buildings collapse.

The collapse of the buildings was therefore a bonus, rather than the intention of the attack.

This is a common 9/11 Conspiracy Theory error to make, because every alternate theory I have come across includes the perpetrators intending for the towers to collapse.

R.Mackey

21st July 2008, 09:12 PM

Are you saying using the technology listed in the link I provided that it would be impossible to guide a plane into a WTC building with +/- 3 meters accuracy?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

The technology you listed (belatedly, I've known of it for years, and was among the original proposers) is based on autopilot and autoland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland), the latter of which is dependent on ILS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_Landing_System) (Instrument Landing System). The Wikipedia articles on these are decent and worth your perusal.

So let's say we want 3 meter accuracy. Automatic landing can be thought of as a large control loop. The localizer beacons provide a position update to the flight computer, which arrives at a certain frequency and latency. This goes through the control laws, moves the control surfaces, the aircraft attitude changes, and the aircraft accelerates in response, acceleration changes its velocity and thus its position, and this results in a change in ILS, closing the loop. But all of these steps take time. The time depends on electronics, aircraft size and inertia, performance of airfoils and control surfaces, etc.

In order to get that 3 m accuracy, the timing has to be worked out such that the aircraft is stable, i.e. those delays are not so long that the aircraft can drift out of your 3 m goal box during that period, and doesn't have to accelerate so much that it won't have time to counteract that acceleration without overshooting. Control theory is all about stability.

Whether or not we are stable depends on how fast we are going. The ILS is designed to operate at about 180 knots. Our WTC attack aircraft, on the other hand, are going much faster -- call it twice as fast. The approach trajectory is basically a (hopefully, damped) oscillation around the ideal momentum vector. Since we've doubled our speed, our acceleration goes up by a factor of four (2 squared). So to stay on track, even assuming latency is minimal, we need four times as much control authority.

Adding latency into the equation, it is quite possible that autoland would no longer be stable at all. The data just wouldn't update fast enough, the control surfaces just wouldn't react quickly enough. The aircraft would start to deviate, overcorrect, be outside the stability box before it knew it, and then unrecoverably lurch off the glideslope.

If the control system is designed specifically to handle this, there are ways to fix it. What is done typically is to relax tolerances and integration times. Rather than overdrive the control system, we instead give the aircraft more time to average its position, more gentle control responses, all designed to keep it stable. This isn't too hard to do. But the accuracy suffers because you've deliberately relaxed your constraints. Since our needed acceleration is four times higher, we need four times the integration time, and typically the position accuracy will scale at least linearly. Where we had 3 meter accuracy at normal landing speeds, now we have 12 meter accuracy. Enough to hit a Tower, sure, but not nearly enough to pick your floor.

As I explained in the other thread, there are ways to do it. But they cannot depend on autoland. It just doesn't have the precision. Neither does GPS. The most available off-the-shelf analogue in my opinion is DSMAC. I'm pretty confident that it would work fine, but I'm also confident it would be quite laborious and expensive.

Still not convincing. I don't see why the upper floors and lower floors could'nt have been prepped for CD, leaving 4 floors (+/-) as the crash zone unprepped for CD. The upper rigging and lower rigging could have been independently set up. Thus, no wiring going through the crash zone.

It sounds like what you're describing here is an approach where the aircraft impact and the explosives don't interact at all -- the explosives alone are enough to level the structure, and all the aircraft has to do is miss. I agree, this is relatively possible, although one can never discount the possibility of an unlucky fuel distribution gutting the floor with the explosives...

... but this hypothesis is a terrible match to what we saw. I'm not sure why one would bother, or why you brought it up in the first place.

Also, regarding fly-by-wire, as others have remarked fly-by-wire means controls are transmitted from the pilot station to the flight computer electronically, and from there go to transducers that work the control surfaces. In older aircraft, including 757 and 767's, the control is analogue. Think of a newer luxury car -- some of them have "throttle by wire," i.e. the gas pedal just generates an electronic signal, whereas older cars actually have a cable that opens the intake or restricts the carburetor.

Fly-by-wire is essential if you want to retrofit an aircraft to have this capability, or to override the pilot. In that case you need a custom flight computer, which is no picnic but theoretically doable. An older aircraft, like these, it would be extremely difficult to lock out the pilot without making the aircraft totally unflyable.

Conversions of non fly-by-wire to fly-by-wire are very rare and difficult as well. Among the few, some of my friends at NASA Dryden operate a heavily modified F-15 (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/aircraft/F-15B-837/index.html) that was so converted, and it was a significant research project. I know what I'm talking about, and the airline techs and such who post here can give you an even more thorough explanation. But it shouldn't be necessary. The idea of remote control planes is totally ridiculous, and some yutz typing in an article from Aviation Week to impress his similarly ignorant Truth Movement buddies doesn't mean a damn thing.

AZCat

21st July 2008, 09:26 PM

Conversions of non fly-by-wire to fly-by-wire are very rare and difficult as well. Among the few, some of my friends at NASA Dryden operate a heavily modified F-15 (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/aircraft/F-15B-837/index.html) that was so converted, and it was a significant research project. I know what I'm talking about, and the airline techs and such who post here can give you an even more thorough explanation. But it shouldn't be necessary. The idea of remote control planes is totally ridiculous, and some yutz typing in an article from Aviation Week to impress his similarly ignorant Truth Movement buddies doesn't mean a damn thing.

The only other conversion I know of was coincidentally also at Dryden - the famous CID. I think it is important to note though that the final(!) approach was quite a ways off the center line (although how far I haven't been able to find out quantitatively), but the managers decided to land the plane anyway.

R.Mackey

21st July 2008, 09:45 PM

The only other conversion I know of was coincidentally also at Dryden - the famous CID. I think it is important to note though that the final(!) approach was quite a ways off the center line (although how far I haven't been able to find out quantitatively), but the managers decided to land the plane anyway.

FSTCID Final Report (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880000639_1988000639.pdf)

This is kind of a strange one. The aircraft (a 707 720) was not converted to fly-by-wire in the usual sense, but instead had actuators placed in the cockpit, and those actuators controlled via radio. This illustrates the idiocy of the "remote control" idea, as I've brought up several times here and in my whitepaper.

I believe the decision to make the best of it after going off the glideslope was not made by management, but by the pilot. I think it was his call that the risk of trying and failing to recover and go around was greater than a partially successful test. But I never spoke to Mr. Fulton about it personally. He retired before my time. Other folks in the DFRC pilot's office might know.

ETA: Boeing 720, not a (similar) 707. Human minds are fallible, the written word endures! Read the report, it's interesting.

gumboot

22nd July 2008, 02:20 AM

Anyone else just love how classy R.Mackey is? :D

LashL

22nd July 2008, 03:28 PM

Anyone else just love how classy R.Mackey is? :D

Yes. :)

pomeroo

22nd July 2008, 07:51 PM

Anyone else just love how classy R.Mackey is? :D

Oh, yeah? A couple of appearances on 'Hardfire' will take care of that.

SaiGirl

22nd July 2008, 10:24 PM

\
No system then available, and none today, would meet the requirements.
And even with a system (one that no pilot or maintainer could detect) that could hit its target at those speeds and with millimeter accuracy, you still can't coordinate the attack. Uncertainties in where furniture is, or the precise failure strain of materials, is enough to radically change the damage path. See the Purdue results.
This line of reasoning is absolutely idiotic.

The Purdue Simulation is just that:
An attempt to visually simulate the physics of a plane crashing into a Tower.
The Tower is made of steel columns, girders, beams, and rebar reinforced concrete.
The Boeing plane is a hollow basket of mostly aluminum with a fiberglass nosecone.

It would be like a beer can crashing into a concrete and steel barbecue pit.
The pilot's cabin would crumple and be shoved back into 2nd class.
Material density differential between the plane and the Tower that is orders of magnitude.
A simple matter of materials science and basic Newton.

The Purdue Simulation is a joke. A cartoon.
Watch it again.
In fact, please post it here so we can all watch it again and enjoy its whimsicality.

R.Mackey

22nd July 2008, 10:31 PM

The Purdue Simulation is a joke. A cartoon.
Watch it again.
In fact, please post it here so we can all watch it again and enjoy its whimsicality.

I'm meant to be impressed by some nobody, claiming work from one of the better engineering universities in the world is a "joke," based on such a flimsy beer can analogy?

I gravely doubt you even understand their conclusions. Heck, I doubt you've read even one of their papers.

beachnut

22nd July 2008, 10:47 PM

The Tower is made of steel columns, girders, beams, and rebar reinforced concrete.
The Boeing plane is a hollow basket of mostly aluminum with a fiberglass nosecone.
Where is the rebar reinforced concrete? Are you talking about the 4 inches of light weight concrete floors? You did not do much preparation for this pure fantasy attack, did you?

So a plane with the kinetic energy of 2093 pounds of TNT, can't enter a steel building? Looks like you and physics have no working relationship, but you and pure fantasy are on a first name basis.

Your lack of knowledge on physics means you need to run, don't walk, to the office and sign up for basic physics before you post more really dumb ideas on 9/11. Please do yourself a favor and get some education so you can understand the real world. Are you an Econ PhD, or a PhD in cold fusion?

LordoftheLeftHand

23rd July 2008, 01:27 AM

It would be like a beer can crashing into a concrete and steel barbecue pit.
The pilot's cabin would crumple and be shoved back into 2nd class.
Material density differential between the plane and the Tower that is orders of magnitude.
A simple matter of materials science and basic Newton.

The Purdue Simulation is a joke. A cartoon.
Watch it again.
In fact, please post it here so we can all watch it again and enjoy its whimsicality.

So what you think those huge planes, moving really fast would just bounce off the building without damaging it? Like bullets off superman's chest?

LLH

23rd July 2008, 06:27 AM

The Purdue Simulation is just that:
An attempt to visually simulate the physics of a plane crashing into a Tower.
The Tower is made of steel columns, girders, beams, and rebar reinforced concrete.
The Boeing plane is a hollow basket of mostly aluminum with a fiberglass nosecone.

It would be like a beer can crashing into a concrete and steel barbecue pit.
The pilot's cabin would crumple and be shoved back into 2nd class.
Material density differential between the plane and the Tower that is orders of magnitude.
A simple matter of materials science and basic Newton.

The Purdue Simulation is a joke. A cartoon.
Watch it again.
In fact, please post it here so we can all watch it again and enjoy its whimsicality.

The Boeing plane may be mostly aluminum and fibreglass, but what about the fuel, luggage, unfortunate passengers, seats, decor, amenities, etc that fill every passenger plane?
Such aircraft are not lightweights.

Tell me, SaiGirl, do you think skyscrapers sway in the wind?
(yes, there is a point to this question)

ETA: How do I ask a mod to split this thread? Should I just report my post, and make the request in the report comments?
I ask because I don't see how the tangent of whether the plane should have bounced off the building is relevant to the possibility of remote controlled aircraft.

gumboot

23rd July 2008, 06:37 AM

Actually if you worked out an average I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that a Boeing 767 would be substantially denser than the WTC towers.

gumboot

23rd July 2008, 06:40 AM

It would be like a beer can crashing into a concrete and steel barbecue pit.

How about we fill that beer can with beer and then fire it at the barbecue at 500 MPH?

MRC_Hans

23rd July 2008, 07:03 AM

Actually if you worked out an average I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that a Boeing 767 would be substantially denser than the WTC towers.You'd loose. But SaiGirl's "orders of magnitude" is also way off.

A rough calulation puts the 767's density at 0.1 and that of a WTC Tower at 0.3 .

Note that both would float easily on water.

... I used the figures got a Boeing 767-200. Some of the bigger versions will show a higher density.

I think the pertinent question is: What, short of a massive concrete or metal block, would NOT be penetrated by 140 tons hitting it at 400kts?

Or take the baseball analogy: What is hardest and heaviest, a glass pane or a baseball?

Now, bat a baseball at a window and watch which of them breaks.

Hans

gumboot

23rd July 2008, 06:52 PM

You'd loose. But SaiGirl's "orders of magnitude" is also way off.

A rough calulation puts the 767's density at 0.1 and that of a WTC Tower at 0.3 .

Note that both would float easily on water.

... I used the figures got a Boeing 767-200. Some of the bigger versions will show a higher density.

I think the pertinent question is: What, short of a massive concrete or metal block, would NOT be penetrated by 140 tons hitting it at 400kts?

Or take the baseball analogy: What is hardest and heaviest, a glass pane or a baseball?

Now, bat a baseball at a window and watch which of them breaks.

Hans

Did you take into account fuel, luggage and furniture?

Max Photon

23rd July 2008, 07:21 PM

In order to get that 3 m accuracy, the timing has to be worked out such that the aircraft is stable, i.e. those delays are not so long that the aircraft can drift out of your 3 m goal box during that period, and doesn't have to accelerate so much that it won't have time to counteract that acceleration without overshooting. Control theory is all about stability.

Whether or not we are stable depends on how fast we are going. The ILS is designed to operate at about 180 knots. Our WTC attack aircraft, on the other hand, are going much faster -- call it twice as fast. The approach trajectory is basically a (hopefully, damped) oscillation around the ideal momentum vector. Since we've doubled our speed, our acceleration goes up by a factor of four (2 squared). So to stay on track, even assuming latency is minimal, we need four times as much control authority.

Adding latency into the equation, it is quite possible that autoland would no longer be stable at all. The data just wouldn't update fast enough, the control surfaces just wouldn't react quickly enough. The aircraft would start to deviate, overcorrect, be outside the stability box before it knew it, and then unrecoverably lurch off the glideslope.

Okay, so let me get this straight.....

the fast-flying jets in dense, humid air present overwhelming stability problems for control loops.....

yet, if we listen to Beachnut and others, the novice pilots - heck, ten year olds - could have easily flown the jets with two fingers?

SDC

23rd July 2008, 07:32 PM

Max Photon

23rd July 2008, 07:36 PM

Control theory is all about stability.

Easy tiger. Control theory is also about deliberately overdriving systems.

(Right Clippy? ; )

Max Photon

23rd July 2008, 07:47 PM

Max, please don't pretend to be obtuse. Don't join the nastily and aggressively clueless.

The hijackers were not "novices."

Okay then, relative to the world of pilots, which best describes the hijackers?

Novice
Intermediate
Advanced

Please don't suggest they were the equivalent of 10 year olds who, pretty much by definition, would have had no training.

I didn't suggest the hijackers were the equivalent of 10 year olds. What I was getting at is that others here at JREF have dismissed claims that the jets would have been difficult to handle, and have said or insinuated that even children could have handled the jets.

Hokulele

23rd July 2008, 08:29 PM

Okay then, relative to the world of pilots, which best describes the hijackers?

Novice
Intermediate
Advanced

That depends on which of the 19 you are referring to. They had various levels of skill, inclusive of at least two of those categories.

I didn't suggest the hijackers were the equivalent of 10 year olds. What I was getting at is that others here at JREF have dismissed claims that the jets would have been difficult to handle, and have said or insinuated that even children could have handled the jets.

The point was that it would take that level of control to hit a target with 3 meter accuracy. The hijackers were under no such constraints.

KDLarsen

23rd July 2008, 08:43 PM

Speaking of density, isn't this basically just a repeat of the 'Hole in the Pentagon debate?

The Boeing 767 may have a plastic nosecone, but right behind that & slightly below, you have the nose gear assembly which is quite dense. And moving further back & to either sides, you have the pair of CF6-80C2 / JT9D-7R4 engines.

Curiously enough, it was also these parts that travelled the furthest after crashing into the towers:rolleyes:

R.Mackey

23rd July 2008, 09:38 PM

beachnut

23rd July 2008, 11:24 PM

Okay, so let me get this straight.....

the fast-flying jets in dense, humid air present overwhelming stability problems for control loops.....

yet, if we listen to Beachnut and others, the novice pilots - heck, ten year olds - could have easily flown the jets with two fingers?
This leaves us with the only people on earth not able to fly jet into buildings (terrorist can) or simulate it in a jet simulator (p4t can't), are p4t, you, and 9/11 truth. The kids I put in simulators could hit buildings, there is a video of a person who flew Cessnas (single engine prop), he was in a full up 757 simulator and hit the Pentagon the first pass, and did it again. I have flown Boeing jets, instructed in Boeing jets, and I have worked with 757/767 pilots. We all agree there was no special skill needed to pull off 9/11, anyone could have done it. Fact is, the terrorist flew planes and despite how bad they were during portions of their training, they persisted to become pilots capable of aiming planes at large objects, and hitting them, 75 percent of the time. Not as good as most commercial flight, 75 percent is somewhat short of expectations of most flights. BTW, I can set down a large jet within 10 feet of a landing target! Naval Aviators are laughing at me, as they can set down a jet on a dime, on a moving carrier! Hand flying a large airliner is easier (in a 767/757) and a billion dollars quicker, than making up a remote control to do what the terrorist did. I stand by the fact a kid could take a 757 and hit a building! You and p4t may not be able, but a kid could. Your mildec fantasy has messed up your understanding of 9/11.

New slogan, terrorist can fly, p4t can't (with reference to into buildings in jets or simulators), terrorist understand 9/11, p4t, you and 9/11 truth do not understand 9/11.

You spew talk of control theory, but lack knowledge on the topic.

More...
Mackey is right, if the winds are bad, the weather condition making it rough, and high speed is considered, those things could make control a problem for some. The reason 9/11 worked, the weather was not near extremes. It was clear, almost perfect. IFR flying (clouds) would have doomed the terrorist, high winds could have made hitting the towers or the Pentagon close to impossible for some pilots with low time. Certain types of planes could have made it tougher to fly into buildings at the speeds seen on 9/11. There are some extremes where precision flying is not as easy to do, but a lot of us can be precise up to the limits of our aircraft, and our flying skills. But on 9/11 a kid could have flown the jets (757/767) into buildings.

gumboot

24th July 2008, 04:48 AM

funk de fino

24th July 2008, 05:16 AM

Oh dear, Max came out of his mildec comfort zone and got his arse handed to him.

MIKILLINI

25th July 2008, 06:26 PM

Okay then, relative to the world of pilots, which best describes the hijackers?

Novice
Intermediate
Advanced

I didn't suggest the hijackers were the equivalent of 10 year olds. What I was getting at is that others here at JREF have dismissed claims that the jets would have been difficult to handle, and have said or insinuated that even children could have handled the jets.

You have missed the point Max; 2 points actually. The 757/767 is relatively easy to fly once some basic lessons on a simulator are taken.

This is point #1: A PILOT IS REQUIRED TO FLY THE PLANE.
Point #2: Flying the 757/767 without a pilot is virtually impossible.
Now do you get it?

MRC_Hans

26th July 2008, 09:37 AM

Did you take into account fuel, luggage and furniture?I took the max weight from the plane data and some estimate of the weight of the buildings. I'd say my figures may be +-50%.

Hans

MRC_Hans

28th July 2008, 01:18 AM

You have missed the point Max; 2 points actually. The 757/767 is relatively easy to fly once some basic lessons on a simulator are taken.

This is point #1: A PILOT IS REQUIRED TO FLY THE PLANE.
Point #2: Flying the 757/767 without a pilot is virtually impossible.
Now do you get it?I really suppose you could install a navigation system like that of a cruise missile into a any plane. The interface to the controls would have to be custom made, of course. Hitting the towers should not be too difficult: Just fly the right altitude on a course that cuts across the tower. GPS is precise enough for that. After all, a cruise missile can hit its target within a few yeards.

As for disposing of the proper crew and anybody who might interfere with the remote control, a couple of gas cartridges would do the trick.

All this would require unlimited access to the plane for several hours shortly prior to take-off. And of course, would be extremely risky.

Hans

gumboot

28th July 2008, 02:49 AM

28th July 2008, 04:02 AM

funk de fino

28th July 2008, 04:29 AM

liar since the 60's, NASA has remote controll for boeing airliners......

Read Ryans first sentence very carefully. Then apologize to him for falsely accusing him of lying.

(last three words especially)

pomeroo

28th July 2008, 04:53 AM

Read Ryans first sentence very carefully. Then apologize to him for falsely accusing him of lying.

(last three words especially)

Funk, you are addressing an admirer of the hopeless idiot Heiwa. This clown won't apologize for any of the nonsense he fabricates.

MRC_Hans

28th July 2008, 04:59 AM

Plus the faking of phone calls...Faking of phone calls, silencing the technicians who installed it, the people who supplied the parts, etc.

Plus the very real risk that just one such rig failed and a plane landed with it intact, to be found by some maintenance personnel, post 9/11 :eye-poppi.

All in all, IMHO, the technology is not fiction, but the idea of applying it is very much so.

Hans

R.Mackey

28th July 2008, 10:08 AM

I really suppose you could install a navigation system like that of a cruise missile into a any plane. The interface to the controls would have to be custom made, of course. Hitting the towers should not be too difficult: Just fly the right altitude on a course that cuts across the tower. GPS is precise enough for that. After all, a cruise missile can hit its target within a few yeards.

As for disposing of the proper crew and anybody who might interfere with the remote control, a couple of gas cartridges would do the trick.

All this would require unlimited access to the plane for several hours shortly prior to take-off. And of course, would be extremely risky.

I commented on exactly this approach in the other thread. You've severely underestimated the effort required to install new sensors as well as actuators -- probably in the cockpit -- and trim out the aircraft in question.

Technically possible, yes. In a hurry, not so much. Doable without the pilots and maintainers not instantly noticing, absolutely no.

MIKILLINI

28th July 2008, 09:48 PM

liar since the 60's, NASA has remote controll for boeing airliners......

Show how the planes could have been customized without AA or United's ground crew noticing or the pilots going through their pre-flight checks not aware of the alterations.

SaiGirl

21st March 2009, 09:29 AM

9/11 ain't exactly "rocket science".

No advanced degrees are required to observe the intuitively obvious:
That the Towers were blown to Kingdom Come, and that WTC7 (destroyed about 5:30 that evening) was a classic controlled demolition.

The Evan Fairbanks video of "Flight 175" smoothly disappearing into the South Tower with zero impact (like a hot knife thru butter) is a transparent bit of cartoon fakery.

I repeat: No advanced degrees or "rocket science" are necessary to see what happened on 9/11. Only common sense.

Denial of the reality that this was a just another in a long history of contrived false-flag psyops, engineered by spooks with some flashy pyrotechnics and advanced weaponry is motivated less by intellectual skepticism, than by a craven cowardice and emotional inability to face the sad implications of it all.

Now we are witnessing some of the same key perpetrators of 9/11 (AIG) do a 9/11 on the US and world economy, by a carefully controlled demolition of the dollar and world financial markets. The methodology is essentially the same.

T.A.M.

21st March 2009, 09:32 AM

oh boy, another doosey. Here we go again.

Someone provide her with the links, and please do not feed any trolls.

TAM:)

AJM8125

21st March 2009, 09:57 AM

Only common sense.http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2683249c51c69b7fa2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15769)

Corsair 115

21st March 2009, 11:56 AM

Someone provide her with the links, and please do not feed any trolls.

Can we at least point at them and laugh?

T.A.M.

21st March 2009, 12:00 PM

Can we at least point at them and laugh?

No!

but you may use the laughing dog smilie.

TAM:D

beachnut

21st March 2009, 12:08 PM

9/11 ain't exactly "rocket science".
...
I repeat: No advanced degrees or "rocket science" are necessary to see what happened on 9/11. Only common sense. ...
You are right the plot of 911 was simple even you missed it.

kill pilots - not a high skilled "rocket science" task just murder

fly planes into buildings - a simple task I fly planes, it is simple

I am not surprised a small fringe group that includes you can't figure out 911, only heroes of Flight 93 can figure out 911 in minutes and fight their murderers; you would rather apologize for terrorists and fail after 7 years.
Einstein said this about your failed logic and delusions...
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” Einstein.

Mr.Herbert

21st March 2009, 12:09 PM

9/11 ain't exactly "rocket science".
is a transparent bit of cartoon fakery.

Awww how cute... a No-Planer.

Bobert

21st March 2009, 01:38 PM

Oh man No Planers know where to score the best drugs I bet!
Talk to your doctor and see which med is right for you...
http://mentalhealth.about.com/cs/psychopharmacology/a/antipsy.htm

A W Smith

21st March 2009, 01:48 PM

9/11 ain't exactly "rocket science".

No advanced degrees are required to observe the intuitively obvious:
That the Towers were blown to Kingdom Come (http://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/BlownToKingdomCome.html). and that WTC7 (destroyed about 5:30 that evening) was a classic controlled demolition.

The Evan Fairbanks video of "Flight 175" smoothly disappearing into the South Tower with zero impact (like a hot knife thru butter) is a transparent bit of cartoon fakery. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1RWiw4hdvs)

I repeat: No advanced degrees or "rocket science" are necessary to see what happened on 9/11. Only common sense.

Denial of the reality that this was a just another in a long history of contrived false-flag psyops, engineered by spooks with some flashy pyrotechnics and advanced weaponry is motivated less by intellectual skepticism, than by a craven cowardice and emotional inability to face the sad implications of it all.

Now we are witnessing some of the same key perpetrators of 9/11 (AIG) do a 9/11 on the US and world economy, by a carefully controlled demolition of the dollar and world financial markets. (http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/baker/baker1.html) The methodology is essentially the same.
Well well well. We haven't seen our musician friend in quite some time. Say Ace. Have you gotten over Judy's rejection (http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ_troll_challenge.html) of you yet? Cant quite un-sing a note once sung though can ya? (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/JudyWood/JudyWould.html)

:socks:

George152

21st March 2009, 02:33 PM

Okay then, relative to the world of pilots, which best describes the hijackers?

Novice
Intermediate
Advanced

They held Commercial Pilot Licenses.
That is, they had flown more than 250 hours and had passed the 5 required subjects and had undergone a flight test.
In aviation your 'list' has no meaning

Homeland Insurgency

21st March 2009, 03:26 PM

I really like this thread.

So supposedly there were 19 terrorists.

Four of them according to debunkers were experienced pilots. Or maybe I got that wrong.

I'm not really sure what the debunker stance on this is. Like a lot of so-called debunking it's rather vague.

Four terrorist pilots on 9/11 according to debunkers.

List and cite their confirmed experience and licenses as pilots.

Maybe while you're at it you can confirm their identities. But don't let that distract you from the task at hand.

Start with how you as a debunker know for a fact that they were experienced pilots.

Maybe Beachnut should go first. But whichever debunker wants to step up is fine with me.

Gravy

21st March 2009, 03:34 PM

They held Commercial Pilot Licenses.
That is, they had flown more than 250 hours and had passed the 5 required subjects and had undergone a flight test.
In aviation your 'list' has no meaningPsst! Check the date on the post you're replying to. ;)

TexasJack

21st March 2009, 03:56 PM

Four terrorist pilots on 9/11 according to debunkers.

Are you a no-planer HI? If not, why don't you tell us what you call pilots that ram airplanes into buildings?

Homeland Insurgency

21st March 2009, 04:01 PM

Are you a no-planer HI?

Nope.

If not, why don't you tell us what you call pilots that ram airplanes into buildings?

Why don't you just answer the question debunker?

Where is all of this pilot experience documented for all four of these pilots on 9/11 that debunkers claim committed these attacks?

Got any?

Gravy came and went. What do you have?

TexasJack

21st March 2009, 04:04 PM

Nope.

Why don't you just answer the question debunker?

Where is all of this pilot experience documented for all four of these pilots on 9/11 that debunkers claim committed these attacks?

Got any?

Gravy came and went. What do you have?

Then who rammed those planes into the building HI? I call them terrorists, what do you call them?

Homeland Insurgency

21st March 2009, 04:12 PM

Then who rammed those planes into the building HI? I call them terrorists, what do you call them?

That's not what I asked you.

In this thread it is insinuated by debunkers that these "pilots" had the experience to maneuver these planes and complete their mission.

Where is this experience documented for all four pilots?

Anytime you're ready to show me how you came to your beliefs about these "hijackers" and what you base these beliefs on.

It really shouldn't take more then one post.

beachnut

21st March 2009, 04:14 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2683249c51c69b7fa2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15769)
Who is dumb enough to be a no-planer and comment in a remote control (a plane) thread?

This is so old; the four terrorist pilots had FAA tickets and the fact 911Truth believers can't look it up themselves is self-critiquing and exposes their ignorance on this topic for over 7 years.

If you can ride a bicycle, chew gum and walk at the same time, you too may be capable of flying a 757/767 into a building with zero training. If you are a member of some idiot organization you will think you need flight training and go get your FAA tickets. I bet 911Truth members would think they need flight training but ironically they fail at 911 spewing delusions and see zero need for training in logic, finding knowledge, the use of evidence to form rational conclusions.

SaiGirl found the lost password today and started posting again exposing complete ignorance on 911 and has stirred up some ignored posters to ask real dumb questions answered years ago.

A kid could fly a 757/767 better than the terrorist with no training, it is clear trained murderers can fly bad enough to hit the WTC, and the Pentagon, and the ground. They did! Failure is 911Truth

TexasJack

21st March 2009, 04:14 PM

That's not what I asked you.

In this thread it is insinuated by debunkers that these "pilots" had the experience to maneuver these planes and complete their mission.

Where is this experience documented for all four pilots?

Anytime you're ready to show me how you came to your beliefs about these "hijackers" and what you base these beliefs on.

It really shouldn't take more then one post.

What's the matter HI, can't answer a simple question, are the pilots that steered planes into the buildings terrorists or not? It really is not that hard of question, so why not answer it? Or are you a closet no-planer?

AJM8125

21st March 2009, 04:55 PM

Sheesh. (http://www.911myths.com/images/5/55/Hijackers_Timeline_OCR.pdf)

doobiedoright

21st March 2009, 06:36 PM

T.A.M.

21st March 2009, 06:48 PM

That's not what I asked you.

In this thread it is insinuated by debunkers that these "pilots" had the experience to maneuver these planes and complete their mission.

Where is this experience documented for all four pilots?

Anytime you're ready to show me how you came to your beliefs about these "hijackers" and what you base these beliefs on.

It really shouldn't take more then one post.

Stop being lazy. Go to Gravy's links. You know the information is there. Whether you choose to believe it or not is your own call.

The days of people here doing your work for you truther (or should I say taking your silly little bait) are gone.

Bobert

21st March 2009, 07:00 PM

Why feed into HI?

beachnut

21st March 2009, 08:14 PM

Why feed into HI?
you must know there is a epiphany

it comes for some of us in algebra

some of us it come in human relations

one could hope an epiphany could come in regards to 911

for hi it has not come, it is possible, maybe

HawksFan

23rd March 2009, 09:00 AM

beachnut

23rd March 2009, 09:15 AM

I hate to point this out, but I'm pretty sure I can't ride a bike, chew gum, and walk all at the same time. :D

Two out of the three, yes, but not all of them. Then again, I'm not as agile as I once was.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/a-different-hybrid-bicycle.php
http://www.treehugger.com/hybrid-bicycle-walking-riding-bike.jpg

Now you can

HawksFan

23rd March 2009, 02:03 PM

Haha, that's great! Kind of a Fred Flintstone bicycle.

Sunstealer

23rd March 2009, 04:11 PM

Yabadabadoo!

Mince

23rd March 2009, 05:04 PM

9/11 ain't exactly "rocket science".

No advanced degrees are required to observe the intuitively obvious:
That the Towers were blown to Kingdom Come, and that WTC7 (destroyed about 5:30 that evening) was a classic controlled demolition.

Sure. And I hear they're going to stop teaching medicine at medical school because it's all intuitive and "common sense." Medical school isn't rocket science either; it's brain surgery.

Indulge me on a few questions:

Are you American?

If yes, do you work for evil, murderous corporate America?

Do you buy evil, murderous corporate America's goods and services?

Do you give a portion of your income, via taxes, to the evil, murderous U.S. Government?

Why?

Mince

23rd March 2009, 05:12 PM

No!

but you may use the laughing dog smilie.

TAM:D

Can we dangle food tantalizingly in front of them?

roundhead

24th March 2009, 08:12 AM

Dave Rogers

24th March 2009, 08:29 AM

I have seen no convincing evidence that much if any harm was done to the cores of either building.

So when a plane hits one side of a building and a fireball explodes out of the opposite side, you see no reason to suppose it passed through the middle?

Dave

johnny karate

24th March 2009, 08:48 AM

All this talk of the building being damaged to where it would destroy the CD avenue of thought is zany.

From all appearances, it seems however the buildings were brought down, the core of the buildings were what was taken out.

I have seen no convincing evidence that much if any harm was done to the cores of either building.
That being the case(and why shouldnt it be) wherever demolition stuff was placed in the cores wouldnt have sustained any damage, no matter where the impacts occured.

Based on the antenna drop, it pretty obvious this(the core)was where cutting charges were placed.

And yet the Truth Movement can't seem to track down a single eyewitness who can verify any of this, despite the fact that it would have to have taken place in front of hundreds of people.

Do you suppose the lack of eyewitnesses willing to come forward and substantiate these claims is because every single one of them are cowards like you have characterized the FDNY as cowards (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4413684&postcount=164)?

dtugg

24th March 2009, 09:53 AM

All this talk of the building being damaged to where it would destroy the CD avenue of thought is zany.

From all appearances, it seems however the buildings were brought down, the core of the buildings were what was taken out.

I have seen no convincing evidence that much if any harm was done to the cores of either building.
That being the case(and why shouldnt it be) wherever demolition stuff was placed in the cores wouldnt have sustained any damage, no matter where the impacts occured.

Based on the antenna drop, it pretty obvious this(the core)was where cutting charges were placed.

Thank you very much for your expert analysis. You just proved that 9/11 was an inside jobby job. Now what are you going to do with this Earth shattering evidence? You are going to give the information out to KSM's lawyers right? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134695) It's your chance to prove to the world that 9/11 was an inside jobby job. Plus, how can you let that poor man be executed by the real perps? Come on roundhead, you could be a hero!

twinstead

25th March 2009, 11:29 AM

Oh my. Here's an example of somebody doing something about something:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Mar25/0,4670,BridgeCollapse,00.html

Here is your template, truthers. Get your experts, get your attorneys, and give 'em HELL!

Trojan

12th October 2009, 12:38 PM

The Evan Fairbanks video of "Flight 175" smoothly disappearing into the South Tower with zero impact (like a hot knife thru butter) is a transparent bit of cartoon fakery.

Do twoofers actualy expect a plane to bounce off the building? How is this transparent cartoon fakery? Is this a left brain not talking to the right brain type of defect of what?

paulheinze

12th October 2009, 03:52 PM

Hello Sizzler
There's nothing particularly impossible in the post at 911blogger, although I don't think they realise how the control surfaces in relatively older planes operate. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the pilots and manuevers involved were not spectacular and were well within the range of a poor to moderately skilled pilot.

I doubt that. AA 11 hit the WTC out of a curve while there was a steady wind.
And AA 11 hit the WTC 1 in the middle of the building precisely with a lateral angle of 0 degress.

AA 175 followed a more difficult path. It descended and hit the WTC 2 while flying a curve. And AA 175 hit the building precisely with a lateral angle of 0 degrees, too.

A pilot who wants to hit a building while flying a curve must know precisely the resulting radius of a certain banking angle at a certain speed. If he does not take into account the wind he will miss.

And all this with a flying speed of roughly 500 mph.

These maneuvers cannot be trained on a cessna.

There are three possibilities
- extreme luck
- special training on the type of plane, not revealed by the investigations
- use of the autopilot systems

BigAl

12th October 2009, 03:59 PM

I doubt that. AA 11 hit the WTC out of a curve while there was a steady wind.
And AA 11 hit the WTC 1 in the middle of the building precisely with a lateral angle of 0 degress.

AA 175 followed a more difficult path. It descended and hit the WTC 2 while flying a curve. And AA 175 hit the building precisely with a lateral angle of 0 degrees, too.

A pilot who wants to hit a building while flying a curve must know precisely the resulting radius of a certain banking angle at a certain speed. If he does not take into account the wind he will miss.

And all this with a flying speed of roughly 500 mph.

These maneuvers cannot be trained on a cessna.

There are three possibilities
- extreme luck
- special training on the type of plane, not revealed by the investigations
- use of the autopilot systems

Nothing you claim does anything dismiss the massive amount of evidence we have that shows that 19 Arab Islamists planned and executed everything that happened in the way of death and destruction on 9/11.

paulheinze

12th October 2009, 04:01 PM

Nothing you claim does anything dismiss the massive amount of evidence we have that shows that 19 Arab Islamists planned and executed everything that happened in the way of death and destruction on 9/11.

More of these meaningless statements please.

Grizzly Bear

12th October 2009, 04:22 PM

There are three possibilities
- extreme luck
- special training on the type of plane, not revealed by the investigations
- use of the autopilot systems
4) a large, easy to hit target

twinstead

12th October 2009, 04:29 PM

More of these meaningless statements please.

So there ISN'T a massive amount of evidence that points to 19 terrorists crashing planes?

DavidJames

12th October 2009, 04:31 PM

There are three possibilities
- extreme luck
- special training on the type of plane, not revealed by the investigations
- use of the autopilot systemsActually there is a fourth, one which is much more likely.

- paulheinze's argument from incredulity represents simple ignorance.

paulheinze

12th October 2009, 04:33 PM

4) a large, easy to hit target

63m width.

500 mph=223 m/s

remember both planes hit out of a curve not straight on. Straight on would be possible. This is what astonishes me. No pilot took the intuitive approach to hit the buildings.

you have to make the curve precisely taking into account the wind blowing from the north.

When flying at this speed the WTC is not an easy target. Just assume you were driving on a flat surface some km away at 500 mph (3 times the speed a sports car is able to drive) and that you have to drive through a goal 63m wide while driving a curve. This is not easy. And these guys allegedly pulled this of in 3 dimensions.

twinstead

12th October 2009, 04:34 PM

Just in case paulheinz pulls a "what evidence? show me"

The 19 Arab Islamist Hijackers Edited 7/16/09
http://911links.webs.com/19Hijackers.htm
Table of Contents
[1] Reading list for all the evidence we have about the hijackers.
[2] The martyrdom videos made by 7 of the hijackers.
[3] Arabic spoken in cockpits of hijacked planes.
[4] Boarding manifest for Flt11 that shows hijacker's names
[5] The names of the hijackers
[6] BBC on the names and reporting of the hijackers
[7] Answers to Zeitgeist The Movie: - Flight Manifests
[8] Status of Hijacker DNA - (2009)
[9] Answer to "At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive"
[10] bin Laden Connections to the 19 hijackers
[11] News Report on hijackers as of Nov 2, 2001
[12] Hanjour as a pilot
[13] Photo and DNA ID match of some of the hijackers.
[14] Identification of the Flt 77 hijackers
[15] Pictures of the Hanjour and another hijacker boarding the airplanes.
[16] Details of airline tickets for some of the hijackers.
[17] 166-page 9/11 Commission document contains lots of information on hijacker visa applications, with a particular focus on Mohamed Atta.
[18] This 9/11 Commission document includes an INS analysis of Abdulaziz al-Omari's passport, presumably recovered from the Flight 11 crash scene, and reports on another Abdulaziz al-Omari who had no connection at all with terrorism or the plot, but was caught up in one of the "hijacker still alive" stories.
If you want to knowwhy each person is on the list, read any or all of these books to get an idea of just how much evidence for who hijacked the planes and how they are connected directly to bin Laden and KSM and the American Embassy bombings in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Some of these names were known to the FBI even before 9/11/2001 for their crimes.

[1] ----- Essential reading list ---------------------------

The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 by Lawrence
Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It by Terry Mcdermott
The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America, by James Bamford.
PBS Video on Bamford http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spyfactory/program.html
Spying Blind by Amy Zegart
Perfect Soldiers by Terry McDermott

[2] -------Hijacker videos -------------------------------------------

This video has the martyrdom videos made by some of the hijackers.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ideoid=1619489
Hijackers video wills (Scroll down to the bottom)
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Responsibility

[3] -------Arab Audio on Voice recorders --------------

We have the audio of Arabs on the recovered cockpit voice recorders.
The CVR clearly captured the words of the hijackers, including words in Arabic from the microphone in the pilot headset up to the end of the flight. The hijackers' statements, the clarity of the recording, the position of the microphone in the pilot headset, and the corresponding manipulations of flight controls provide the evidence. The quotes are taken from our listening to the CVR, aided by an Arabic speaker.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_C...t/Notes/Part_1

[4] -----------Boarding Manifests ---------------------------

I have the boarding manifest for Flt11 that shows the names.
http://www.911myths.com/images/8/84/...1_Manifest.gif http://www.911myths.com/images/8/84/...1_Manifest.gif
Discussion
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124907
Flash app shows seating, calls , hijackers,
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notable...s/P200018.html

[5] -----Hijacker names ------------------------------

AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77
1) Khalid Almihdhar - Possible Saudi national
-Possible resident of San Diego, California, and New York
-Alias: Sannan Al-Makki; Khalid Bin Muhammad; 'Addallah Al-Mihdhar;
Khalid Mohammad Al-Saqaf

2) Majed Moqed - Possible Saudi national
-Alias: Majed M.GH Moqed; Majed Moqed, Majed Mashaan Moqed

3) Nawaf Alhazmi - Possible Saudi national
-Possible resident of Fort Lee, New Jersey; Wayne, New Jersey; San Diego, California
-Alias: Nawaf Al-Hazmi; Nawaf Al Hazmi; Nawaf M.S. Al Hazmi
4) Salem Alhazmi - Possible Saudi national
-Possible resident of Fort Lee, New Jersey; Wayne, New Jersey
5) Hani Hanjour -
-Possible resident of Phoenix, Arizona, and San Diego, California
-Alias: Hani Saleh Hanjour; Hani Saleh; Hani Hanjour, Hani Saleh H. Hanjour

AMERICAN AIRLINES #11 BOEING 767
1) Satam M.A. Al Suqami- Possible Saudi national
-Dates of birth used: June 28, 1976; Last known address: United Arab Emirates
2) Waleed M. Alshehri - Possible Saudi national
-Dates of birth used: September 13, 1974; January 1, 1976; March 3,
1976; July 8, 1977; December 20, 1978; May 11, 1979; November 5, 1979
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida; Orlando, Florida;
Daytona Beach, Florida
-Believed to be a pilot

3) Wail M. Alshehri
-Date of birth used: September 1, 1968
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida; Newton, Massachusetts
-Believed to be a pilot
4) Mohamed Atta - Possible Egyptian national
-Date of birth used: September 1, 1968
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida; Coral Springs, Florida;
Hamburg, Germany
-Believed to be a pilot
-Alias: Mehan Atta; Mohammad El Amir; Muhammad Atta; Mohamed El
Sayed; Mohamed Elsayed; Muhammad Muhammad Al Amir Awag Al Sayyid
Atta; Muhammad Muhammad Al-Amir Awad Al Sayad

5) Abdulaziz Alomari - Possible Saudi national
-Dates of birth used: December 24, 1972 and May 28, 1979
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida
-Believed to be a pilot
UNITED AIRLINES #175 BOEING 767
1) Marwan Al-Shehhi
-Date of birth used: May 9, 1978
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida
-Believed to be a pilot
-Alias: Marwan Yusif Muhammad Rashid Al-Shehi; Marwan Yusif Muhammad
Rashid Lakrab Al-Shihhi; Abu Abdullah
2) Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad
-Possible residence(s): Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Fayez Ahmad; Banihammad Fayez Abu Dhabi Banihammad; Fayez
Rashid Ahmed; Banihammad Fayez; Rasid Ahmed Hassen Alqadi; Abu
Dhabi Banihammad ; Ahmed Fayez; Faez Ahmed
3) Ahmed Alghamdi
-Alias: Ahmed Salah Alghamdi
4) Hamza Alghamdi
-Possible residence(s): Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Hamza Al-Ghamdi; Hamza Ghamdi; Hamzah Alghamdi; Hamza
Alghamdi Saleh
5) Mohand Alshehri
-Possible residence(s): Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Mohammed Alshehhi; Mohamd Alshehri; Mohald Alshehri
UNITED AIRLINES #93 BOEING 757
1) Saeed Alghamdi
-Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Abdul Rahman Saed Alghamdi; Ali S Alghamdi; Al- Gamdi; Saad
M.S. Al Ghamdi; Sadda Al Ghamdi; Saheed Al-Ghamdi; Seed Al Ghamdi
2) Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi - Possible Saudi national
-Date of birth used: October 11, 1980
-Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Ahmed Alhaznawi
3) Ahmed Alnami
-Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Ali Ahmed Alnami; Ahmed A. Al-Nami; Ahmed Al- Nawi
4) Ziad Samir Jarrah
-Believed to be a pilot
-Alias: Zaid Jarrahi; Zaid Samr Jarrah; Ziad S. Jarrah; Ziad Jarrah
Jarrat, Ziad Samir Jarrahi

[6] -----------------------------------------

BBC on the names and reporting of the hijackers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor..._theory_1.html

[7] ----------------------------------
Answers to Zeitgeist The Movie: - Flight Manifests
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCj8X2glIrA

[8] ------------------------------------------------

Newsweek - Remains of the Day
Nineteen hijackers died on 9/11. What should be done with what's left of them? Eve Conant
From the magazine issue dated Jan 12, 2009
...Through a combination of innovative DNA-mapping techniques, help from the FBI's crime lab and dumb luck, the scientists have now ID'd four of the 10 New York hijackers. The remains of the nine hijackers from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites have also been confirmed; six other hijackers have yet to be identified. ...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177724/output/print

[9] -----------------------------------------------

At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...hijackers.html
BBC Response
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor..._theory_1.html
[10] ----------------------------------------------------

bib Laden Connections to the 19 hijackers

[11] -------------------------------------------------------

News report as of Nov 2, 2001
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...in316806.shtml

[12] --------------------------------------------

New York Newsday article from 9/23/01. "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said." Most of the complaints that I've seen were that he couldn't land well. Considering what he was planning on doing, I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't exactly the top of his "skills to hone" list.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/di...day_sep23.html
Woman taught 9/11 hijacker how to fly
http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php...icleId=3171841

[13] -------------------------

Photo and DNA ID match of some of the pilots.
This 9/11 Commission document explains how the FBI attempted to verify the hijackers identities (includes an apparent DNA match with Jarrah).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13950034/T...mbers-PENTTBOM
http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:...ijackers-1.pdf

[14] ---- Identification of the Flt 77 hijackers ---------

This 9/11 Commission document includes details of a forensic examination of hijacker ID cards recovered from the Pentagon, and a list of identification documents belonging to the hijackers (passports, visas, driving licences, more).
http://911myths.com/images/b/ba/Team...ifications.pdf

[15] --------------------------------

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ress=125x34702

[16] ---------------------------------

Details in hijacker tickets.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...24#post4722224
[17] ------------------------------

http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:...diVisaApps.pdf
[18] ------------------------------

http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:...i-Passport.pdf

paulheinze

12th October 2009, 04:36 PM

Actually there is a fourth, one which is much more likely.

- paulheinze's argument from incredulity represents simple ignorance.

Could you some meaningful content to your argument.

As always discussing here is really amusing. Even when I present an explanation in accordance to the official theory, some guys engage in some kind of "truther-bashing". Either they are not willing to discuss honestly or seriously or they are merely not able to understand what they read.

DGM

12th October 2009, 04:37 PM

63m width.

500 mph=223 m/s

remember both planes hit out of a curve not straight on. Straight on would be possible. This is what astonishes me. No pilot took the intuitive approach to hit the buildings.

you have to make the curve precisely taking into account the wind blowing from the north.

When flying at this speed the WTC is not an easy target. Just assume you were driving on a flat surface some km away at 500 mph (3 times the speed a sports car is able to drive) and that you have to drive through a goal 63m wide while driving a curve. This is not easy. And these guys allegedly pulled this of in 3 dimensions.
Do you fly large jets?

twinstead

12th October 2009, 04:37 PM

paulheinze

12th October 2009, 04:38 PM

Just in case paulheinz pulls a "what evidence? show me"

"What evidence" was an honest question. I have read through the posts.

But stick to the point. There was not a single meaningful answer to my statement.

paulheinze

12th October 2009, 04:43 PM

Do you fly large jets?

DId the the pilots of AA 11 and AA 175 fly large jets before?

DGM

12th October 2009, 04:46 PM

DId the the pilots of AA 11 and AA 175 fly large jets before?
What does this have to do with your statement as to them not being able to do it? What do you base your statement on? Personally I don't know how hard it would be, How do you?

Reactor drone

12th October 2009, 05:03 PM

I doubt that. AA 11 hit the WTC out of a curve while there was a steady wind.
And AA 11 hit the WTC 1 in the middle of the building precisely with a lateral angle of 0 degress.

AA 175 followed a more difficult path. It descended and hit the WTC 2 while flying a curve. And AA 175 hit the building precisely with a lateral angle of 0 degrees, too.

A pilot who wants to hit a building while flying a curve must know precisely the resulting radius of a certain banking angle at a certain speed. If he does not take into account the wind he will miss.

And all this with a flying speed of roughly 500 mph.

These maneuvers cannot be trained on a cessna.

There are three possibilities
- extreme luck
- special training on the type of plane, not revealed by the investigations
- use of the autopilot systems

Could you explain further what you mean by "lateral angle of 0 degrees".From what I've seen neither aircraft hit either building square on.

You might also like to consider that planes can be steered in the air to correct for drift and that a curved flight path might indicate just such manoeuvres taking place.

paulheinze

12th October 2009, 06:01 PM

Could you explain further what you mean by "lateral angle of 0 degrees".From what I've seen neither aircraft hit either building square on.

You might also like to consider that planes can be steered in the air to correct for drift and that a curved flight path might indicate just such manoeuvres taking place.
Of course the planes have to be corrected for drift and they were actually. Otherwise the buildings would have been missed. The point is no evidence was provided that the pilots had sufficient training for this maneuver.

AA 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OtrdIl1ijo

UA 175
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5LuUpcCwU

ktesibios

12th October 2009, 06:05 PM

One of the things that NIST had to do in preparing to simulate the aircraft impacts and the damage done by them was to figure out just how the planes hit, that is, their velocity, direction of travel and orientation. You can read about the process of deriving this information from the video record in NCSTAR 1-2. Start at page 266 of the pdf.

Here:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/3784ad3cdf9d81e5.jpg

is a screen grab of the table presenting their findings. It appears that AA11 hit WTC1 very nearly square-on (except that the plane was angled downward slightly), while UA175 hit at an angle of about 20 degrees. That isn't surprising because al-Shehhi made a rather violent last-second course correction to hit his target. He also hit WTC2 near a corner, while Atta managed to hit WTC1 close to the middle of its horizontal dimension. One result of this was that a few people were able to escape from above the impact floors in WTC2 because the escape routes weren't as completely trashed as they were in WTC1, where nobody who was on or above the impact floors got out alive.

A common troofer mistake is to assume that the hijackers' objectives were to fly a specific trajectory and hit their targets in a specific location and then bang on and on about the difficulty of doing so. If one simply conceives of the hijackers' objectives as:

1. steal airplane
2. find target building
3. crash plane into building

all of the supposed "impossible" flying is revealed as the artifact of their inexpeience.

paulheinze

12th October 2009, 06:14 PM

A common troofer mistake is to assume that the hijackers' objectives were to fly a specific trajectory and hit their targets in a specific location and then bang on and on about the difficulty of doing so. If one simply conceives of the hijackers' objectives as:

1. steal airplane
2. find target building
3. crash plane into building

all of the supposed "impossible" flying is revealed as the artifact of their inexpeience.

NIST is wrong about UA 175. The videos above prove it.

It is right, that you cannot assume a specific trajectory. But the flight maneuvers were in both cases difficult and the pilots hit (maybe lucky?) precisely in spite of not having actual filght experience with the specific plane types.

Correcting for drift and flying the correct curve requires flight experience on these plane types as these parameters are specific for them. You cannot learn this from a cessna.

Cl1mh4224rd

12th October 2009, 06:15 PM

[stuff]
[other stuff]

Funny how when you dig up a corpse, a truther starts buzzing around.

A W Smith

12th October 2009, 06:18 PM

Ranb

12th October 2009, 06:22 PM

remember both planes hit out of a curve not straight on. Straight on would be possible. This is what astonishes me. No pilot took the intuitive approach to hit the buildings.

you have to make the curve precisely taking into account the wind blowing from the north.

When flying at this speed the WTC is not an easy target. Just assume you were driving on a flat surface some km away at 500 mph (3 times the speed a sports car is able to drive) and that you have to drive through a goal 63m wide while driving a curve. This is not easy. And these guys allegedly pulled this of in 3 dimensions.

Why do you think this is hard stuff? Ever fly a plane? I have. Steering an aircraft into position is one of those basic things a pilot first learns. It is no big deal to turn into a short final towards the end of the runway (target) and compensate for a crosswind. Ditto for turning or flying around a landmark. This is very basic stuff. The pilots did not exceed the capabilities of the aircraft they were flying.

Ranb

paulheinze

12th October 2009, 06:26 PM

false, There was little to no wind on 9/11/01
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/cpics/LaGuardia_NY.jpg

the south tower impact almost missed completely. You are engaging in a logical fallacy
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html

Have you ever flown even for a few moments? I have. It is surprisingly easy. It is easy for a reason. If it were not easy, There would be a strong likelihood that over a pilots career, he would die.

The author of the videos estimated from smoke movement of the North Tower fire 9,7 m/s. This is even less than the data of La Guardia.
The resulting drift would have been enough to miss the target if not taken into account.

A W Smith

12th October 2009, 06:29 PM

The author of the videos estimated from smoke movement of the North Tower fire 9,7 m/s. This is even less than the data of La Guardia. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=convert+8.63+mph+to+meters+per+second&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=59681ffd38a8e39f

The resulting drift would have been enough to miss the target if not taken into account.

so you are arguing AGAINST remote control then? the topic of this thread? If not. How could a human pilot NOT take into consideration the effect of drift flying by his seat of the pants?

paulheinze

12th October 2009, 06:31 PM

Why do you think this is hard stuff? Ever fly a plane? I have. Steering an aircraft into position is one of those basic things a pilot first learns. It is no big deal to turn into a short final towards the end of the runway (target) and compensate for a crosswind. Ditto for turning or flying around a landmark. This is very basic stuff. The pilots did not exceed the capabilities of the aircraft they were flying.

Ranb

It is difficult if you had no experience to do it. This is why pilots have to train flying. They have to train on the specific airliner they want to fly. This is why type ratings exist.

The hijackers had no flight experience on these types. At least no evidence was provided.

Do you think it is easy to steer an airliner without experience at 600 mph, descending at 50 m/s, flying a curve, leveling the plane and hitting a target of 63m?

paulheinze

12th October 2009, 06:34 PM

paulheinze

12th October 2009, 06:36 PM

the south tower impact almost missed completely. You are engaging in a logical fallacy
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html

Wrong, the plane was some meters to the right. But the fuselage hit in front of the core. And the plane hit nearly perpendicular.

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy does not apply. Except you assume that the pilots did not intend to hit the WTC but to hit some skyscraper in New York. It would be nice if you could explain how the Texas sharpshooter fallacy applies.

Slayhamlet

12th October 2009, 06:40 PM

A W Smith

12th October 2009, 06:42 PM

Wrong, the plane was some meters to the right. But the fuselage hit in front of the core. And the plane hit nearly perpendicular.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/southtowercolumndamage.jpg

paulheinze

12th October 2009, 06:43 PM

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/southtowercolumndamage.jpg

The videos I cited disprove NIST's estimate

Slayhamlet

12th October 2009, 06:44 PM

Wrong, the plane was some meters to the right. But the fuselage hit in front of the core. And the plane hit nearly perpendicular.

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy does not apply. Except you assume that the pilots did not intend to hit the WTC but to hit some skyscraper in New York. It would be nice if you could explain how the Texas sharpshooter fallacy applies.

Why do you spew this garbage? Who do you think you're attempting to fool? This is a skeptics site. Use real arguments.

paulheinze

12th October 2009, 06:45 PM

There's these things called flight simulators. They're amazingly accurate.

How many hours did the hijackers spent in flight simulators (and I mean real flight simulators not on a PC).

A W Smith

12th October 2009, 06:45 PM

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy does not apply. Except you assume that the pilots did not intend to hit the WTC but to hit some skyscraper in New York. It would be nice if you could explain how the Texas sharpshooter fallacy applies.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html
This fallacy occurs when someone jumps to the conclusion (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Conclusion) that a cluster in some data must be the result of a cause, usually one that it is clustered around. There are two reasons why this is fallacious (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Fallacious):

The cluster may well be the result of chance, in which case it was not caused by anything.
Even if the cluster is not the result of chance, there are other possible reasons for the clustering, other than the cause chosen. For instance, in the Example, if disease D is contagious, it may be clustering around some person who carried it into the city.

Slayhamlet

12th October 2009, 06:46 PM

The videos I cited disprove NIST's estimate

OMG. Somebody want to Stundie this?

A W Smith

12th October 2009, 06:47 PM

The videos I cited disprove NIST's estimate
no they did not

ZAOYpqG8yj0

Slayhamlet

12th October 2009, 06:48 PM

How many hours did the hijackers spent in flight simulators (and I mean real flight simulators not on a PC).

I don't know. Surely the requisite amount to earn their pilot's licenses. Why don't you find out?

Ranb

12th October 2009, 06:55 PM

It is difficult if you had no experience to do it. This is why pilots have to train flying. They have to train on the specific airliner they want to fly. This is why type ratings exist.

The hijackers had no flight experience on these types. At least no evidence was provided.

Do you think it is easy to steer an airliner without experience at 600 mph, descending at 50 m/s, flying a curve, leveling the plane and hitting a target of 63m?

Did you manage to fly into position at your first try? Did you do it at 600mph?

You are being deceptive. Pilots train to safely handle an airliner and deal with emergencies. They do not train to simply grab the controls away from another and crash it into a big building. So you have evidence that a person needs anymore than some simulator time and a few hours in a Cessna to crash an airliner into a big building?

I think what the hijackers did was easy from a flying point of view.

I did manage to line up properly on the runway the first time I flew; it was one of the easier things to do. Much easier than steering the plane down the taxiway. I was not in an airliner, so no, I was not lining up on a runway at 600 mph. The airliners used to attack the WTC were not flown beyond their capabilities.

So you have some sort of evidence that it was a difficult piece of flying on that day?

Ranb

TruthersLie

12th October 2009, 09:44 PM

I doubt that. AA 11 hit the WTC out of a curve while there was a steady wind.
And AA 11 hit the WTC 1 in the middle of the building precisely with a lateral angle of 0 degress.

AA 175 followed a more difficult path. It descended and hit the WTC 2 while flying a curve. And AA 175 hit the building precisely with a lateral angle of 0 degrees, too.

A pilot who wants to hit a building while flying a curve must know precisely the resulting radius of a certain banking angle at a certain speed. If he does not take into account the wind he will miss.

And all this with a flying speed of roughly 500 mph.

blah blah blah.

Here is a simple task paulie. Go onto a simulator, take a jet, and now fly it into a building. it isn't that hard.

In world war 2, they trained pigeons to fly missles into boats... a person can do much better.

These maneuvers cannot be trained on a cessna.

There are three possibilities
- extreme luck
- special training on the type of plane, not revealed by the investigations
- use of the autopilot systems

truther strawman based on lies. The hijackers who were the pilots were ALL licensed pilots. All of them had ATC certification.

try again paulie.

TruthersLie

12th October 2009, 09:49 PM

It is right, that you cannot assume a specific trajectory. But the flight maneuvers were in both cases difficult and the pilots hit (maybe lucky?) precisely in spite of not having actual filght experience with the specific plane types.

I think you might want to look up that word. To say they hit PRECISELY that means you know EXACTLY where they were targeting.

They were trying to HIT THE BUILDING. Since they did, I guess you are correct, they were very precise... except you are using the word incorrectly. Again, reading for comprehension and writing for comprehension are your friends. If you want that class, I'd be happy to let you know how to sign up for it.

Correcting for drift and flying the correct curve requires flight experience on these plane types as these parameters are specific for them. You cannot learn this from a cessna.

STRAWMAN... were they licensed pilots? Did they have ATC qualifications? It is rather simple...

argument from incredulity and ignorance noted...

TruthersLie

12th October 2009, 09:53 PM

It is difficult if you had no experience to do it. This is why pilots have to train flying. They have to train on the specific airliner they want to fly. This is why type ratings exist.

what were the hijacker pilots trainings? IIRC all of them were ATC qualified.. you tried this argument from ignorance with Hani (and got OWNED if I remember correctly).

The hijackers had no flight experience on these types. At least no evidence was provided.

And pointing an aircraft into a building isn't too hard. Adjusting the flight into the target isn't too tough.

Do you think it is easy to steer an airliner without experience at 600 mph, descending at 50 m/s, flying a curve, leveling the plane and hitting a target of 63m?
Yes...

There was a study done (someone please source it for me), where a man took people into a flight simulator, and after 10 minutes on the simulator they were able to hit the pentagon/the towers.

10 minutes of training on a flight simulator. It isn't like they were doing anything particulary difficult.

They were turning and flying into a rather LARGE and noticable target.

since you are such a youtube warrior... here you go
nf2kOy1lLKM
wBTw1I1KU08

I mean it should be sooooo hard.

CurtC

12th October 2009, 10:08 PM

A pilot who wants to hit a building while flying a curve must know precisely the resulting radius of a certain banking angle at a certain speed. If he does not take into account the wind he will miss.

There are three possibilities
- extreme luck
- special training on the type of plane, not revealed by the investigations
- use of the autopilot systems

You forgot one!

- use the old and simple pilot trick of maintaining your target in the same spot on your windshield.

Yes, I used to fly. It's been 29 years since I was PIC, but I remember that!

Brainache

12th October 2009, 11:40 PM

You forgot one!

- use the old and simple pilot trick of maintaining your target in the same spot on your windshield.

Yes, I used to fly. It's been 29 years since I was PIC, but I remember that!

I'm not a pilot, but I remember Billzilla (who is a pilot) saying that as soon as he sits down, a pilot can take a marker pen and put a dot on the windshield directly in front of him. Any target he lines up with the dot will eventually be hit by the plane as long as he keeps the dot in line with the target. That makes perfect sense to me.

Sam.I.Am

13th October 2009, 01:03 AM

I'm not a pilot, but I remember Billzilla (who is a pilot) saying that as soon as he sits down, a pilot can take a marker pen and put a dot on the windshield directly in front of him. Any target he lines up with the dot will eventually be hit by the plane as long as he keeps the dot in line with the target. That makes perfect sense to me.

That is called following the bearing or bearing following depending on who you ask. You get the weapon close enough to the target and pointing in the right direction where it can acquire it and adjust course to keep it in the crosshairs. All modern homing weapons use this method. The hard part is getting it efficiently within the acquisition range of that weapon, after that the weapon does all of the work and it adjusts as needed. It doesn't matter if the medium it's moving through is throwing it off course, the target is evading or both. It is the least efficient form of Target Motion Analysis (TMA) as far as using fuel (and range) goes but is is the simplest form of TMA to make sure that you hit your target. The farther away you are when you acquire, the better your chance of hitting your target.

The towers were obvious targets from tens of miles away. Acquisition was a no brainer on a clear day. I think that they added a terminal manuver of rolling the planes to damage more floors. I also think that 175 missed to starboard because of that, he expected more movement to port as he rolled the plane but he did it too late. (all of this paragraph is supposition on my part).

Dave Rogers

13th October 2009, 01:04 AM

AA 175 followed a more difficult path. It descended and hit the WTC 2 while flying a curve. And AA 175 hit the building precisely with a lateral angle of 0 degrees, too.

What, exactly, is the point of arguing with paulhenze? He's so determined to find anomalies in the events of 9/11 that, if he can't find any, he'll simply make some up. At this point, I think we should just highlight the fact that he's lying, and move on.

Dave

paulheinze

13th October 2009, 05:36 AM

paulheinze

13th October 2009, 05:38 AM

What, exactly, is the point of arguing with paulhenze? He's so determined to find anomalies in the events of 9/11 that, if he can't find any, he'll simply make some up. At this point, I think we should just highlight the fact that he's lying, and move on.

Dave

I cited the videos. Denying a discussion shows you are running out of arguments. Denying the difficulty of hitting the buildings by flying a curve at 600 mph is pure ignorance.

twinstead

13th October 2009, 05:51 AM

I cited the videos. Denying a discussion shows you are running out of arguments. Denying the difficulty of hitting the buildings by flying a curve at 600 mph is pure ignorance.

But how many people who actually FLY PLANES have to tell you that you don't know what the hell you're talking about does it take for you to start questioning yourself? 1? 10? 100? 1000? Why don't you start asking them? You're just arguing from ignorance and personal incredulity. Obviously it's YOU who are running out of arguments if you have to bring this whole "the maneuvers were impossible" BS. Again.

DGM

13th October 2009, 05:54 AM

This is correct. But the pilots on 9/11 did not use this approach. The actual trajectory is difficult and highly improbable for an unexperienced pilot.
What makes you think they meant to fly that path? It could easily be just what happened. Your a text book "Texas sharpshooter".

MortFurd

13th October 2009, 06:09 AM

TruthersLie

13th October 2009, 06:14 AM

This is correct. But the pilots on 9/11 did not use this approach. The actual trajectory is difficult and highly improbable for an unexperienced pilot.

PROVE IT.

It should be easy..

is this now your smoking gun? I mean you keep getting pwned on all of your other claims so far...

please prove it was "high improbable for the unexperienced pilot."

again you use words that do not mean what you think they mean.

DGM

13th October 2009, 06:23 AM

PROVE IT.

It should be easy..

is this now your smoking gun? I mean you keep getting pwned on all of your other claims so far...

please prove it was "high improbable for the unexperienced pilot."

again you use words that do not mean what you think they mean.
I have to agree with him on this. If anyone tried to do the exact thing again it would be nearly impossible. Wait......isn't that the definition of "Texas Sharpshooter"? He's assuming they wanted to fly this path.

paulheinze

13th October 2009, 06:25 AM

what were the hijacker pilots trainings? IIRC all of them were ATC qualified.. you tried this argument from ignorance with Hani (and got OWNED if I remember correctly).

And pointing an aircraft into a building isn't too hard. Adjusting the flight into the target isn't too tough.

Yes...

There was a study done (someone please source it for me), where a man took people into a flight simulator, and after 10 minutes on the simulator they were able to hit the pentagon/the towers.

10 minutes of training on a flight simulator. It isn't like they were doing anything particulary difficult.

They were turning and flying into a rather LARGE and noticable target.

since you are such a youtube warrior... here you go
nf2kOy1lLKM
wBTw1I1KU08

I mean it should be sooooo hard.

The pilot of UA 175 did not fly in the way shown above. He did not point to the building and correcting to hit straight on. The final turn happened shortly before hitting.
The trajectory flown can bes described like this:

paulheinze

13th October 2009, 06:32 AM

I have to agree with him on this. If anyone tried to do the exact thing again it would be nearly impossible. Wait......isn't that the definition of "Texas Sharpshooter"? He's assuming they wanted to fly this path.

I am assuming he wanted to hit the building.
The pilots did not fly the trajectory described by the video of Truthers Lie. POinting roughly at the building and refining it while approaching.
It would be extremely difficult for an inexperienced pilot to hit the building from the yellow trajectory at 600mph. This is even recognized by experienced pilots. I mentioned Niki Lauda (Formula 1 driver and commercial pilot). He assumed that the pilot of UA 175 must have had some kind of super training.
Train logic.

GlennB

13th October 2009, 06:49 AM

I am assuming he wanted to hit the building.
The pilots did not fly the trajectory described by the video of Truthers Lie. POinting roughly at the building and refining it while approaching.
It would be extremely difficult for an inexperienced pilot to hit the building from the yellow trajectory at 600mph.

Yes, it would be very difficult indeed to manoeuvre on that yellow trajectory. That's because it's about 60° from the horizontal and nothing like the one used on 9/11.
Did you mean the red trajectory?

paulheinze

13th October 2009, 06:55 AM

Yes, it would be very difficult indeed to manoeuvre on that yellow trajectory. That's because it's about 60° from the horizontal and nothing like the one used on 9/11.
Did you mean the red trajectory?

The three trajectories described the direction of the plane at three different moments of approach. The author of the videos reconstructed the flight path of UA 175 as 3d model of New York by using the available video evidence and RADES data.
The yellow trajectory was left 5 seconds before impact and the plane pointed along the final red trajectory 2 seconds before impact.
The detailed analysis can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ

MortFurd

13th October 2009, 07:07 AM

The three trajectories described the direction of the plane at three different moments of approach. The author of the videos reconstructed the flight path of UA 175 as 3d model of New York by using the available video evidence and RADES data.
The yellow trajectory was left 5 seconds before impact and the plane pointed along the final red trajectory 2 seconds before impact.
The detailed analysis can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ
Imagine the scene in the cockpit (subtitled in English: )

"Oh ****! I'm going to miss the tower! Help me merciful Allah! Guide my sword that retribution may smite thine enemies!"

{Pilot heaves the yoke over and tramps the pedals. Passengers scream and the frame of the plane makes horrid creaking noises.}

"Oh, thank you most merciful All..."
{Crummmpp!!}

Followed by the deaths of all on board, the immediately following deaths of many in the buidling in the area hit, followed by the deaths of many more as the building collapses.

Please keep that last in mind: Everyone on the plane DIED. Thousands DIED on September 11, 2001. That was horrible. It is horrible. You are making it even more horrible with every word you utter. You are horrible.

DGM

13th October 2009, 07:08 AM

I am assuming he wanted to hit the building.
The pilots did not fly the trajectory described by the video of Truthers Lie. POinting roughly at the building and refining it while approaching.
It would be extremely difficult for an inexperienced pilot to hit the building from the yellow trajectory at 600mph. This is even recognized by experienced pilots. I mentioned Niki Lauda (Formula 1 driver and commercial pilot). He assumed that the pilot of UA 175 must have had some kind of super training.
Train logic.
Can we agree he never exceded the capability of the aircraft?

If we can, why would it be imposible that he just added control imputs to keep the towers in the windshield?

paulheinze

13th October 2009, 07:15 AM

Can we agree he never exceded the capability of the aircraft?

If we can, why would it be imposible that he just added control imputs to keep the towers in the windshield?

The pilot did not exceed the capabilities of the plane. I am not a Noplaner.

But in the case of 175 he approached the building at an angle of 60degrees while descending at 50m/s only to turn into the perpendicular trajectory 5 seconds before impact hitting perfectly levelled.

DGM

13th October 2009, 07:20 AM

The pilot did not exceed the capabilities of the plane. I am not a Noplaner.

But in the case of 175 he approached the building at an angle of 60degrees while descending at 50m/s only to turn into the perpendicular trajectory 5 seconds before impact hitting perfectly levelled.
So what? (although most of the pictures I've seen don't support this). For you to claim this was hard to do would mean he meant to do it (not just happened that way).

paulheinze

13th October 2009, 07:22 AM

So what? (although most of the pictures I've seen don't support this). For you to claim this was hard to do would mean he meant to do it (not just happened that way).

No I mean it was nearly impossible to pull off for an untrained pilot to approach a target at such an angle and to turn the plane at the right moment 5 seconds before impact at 600 mph.
Maybe the hijackers had some kind of training not revelead by the investigation. Anyway NISTs data on UA 175 impact is wrong.

Present your pictures please.

CurtC

13th October 2009, 07:24 AM

This is correct. But the pilots on 9/11 did not use this approach.

Why do you say that? Keeping the target at the same point on your windshield would give a curved path.

The yellow trajectory was left 5 seconds before impact and the plane pointed along the final red trajectory 2 seconds before impact.

What's the difference angle between the two paths? According to my back-of-an-envelope calculations, a 767 at 600 mph could change directions only about 25 degrees in three seconds without breaking the wings off. And that doesn't include the time to roll into and out of the bank.

Dave Rogers

13th October 2009, 07:24 AM

But in the case of 175 he approached the building at an angle of 60degrees while descending at 50m/s only to turn into the perpendicular trajectory 5 seconds before impact hitting perfectly levelled.

Lying again. He did not hit perfectly straight or level. In particular, we know for certain he didn't hit "perfectly levelled" from the impact hole.

Dave

TruthersLie

13th October 2009, 07:25 AM

The pilot of UA 175 did not fly in the way shown above. He did not point to the building and correcting to hit straight on. The final turn happened shortly before hitting.
The trajectory flown can bes described like this:

I really wish I could make heads or tails of your crappy image...

The trajectory flown can best be described as, dive the jets from high altitude and point the nose at the target until you hit it.

10 minutes of simulator training and people can fly directly into buildings... it is rather amazing.

again the KISS rule... try to look it up.

paulheinze

13th October 2009, 07:26 AM

Lying again. He did not hit perfectly straight or level. In particular, we know for certain he didn't hit "perfectly levelled" from the impact hole.

Dave

the fuselage was levelled with a banking angle of 36 degrees. the flight path was levelled shortly before impact.

paulheinze

13th October 2009, 07:27 AM

I really wish I could make heads or tails of your crappy image...

The trajectory flown can best be described as, dive the jets from high altitude and point the nose at the target until you hit it.

10 minutes of simulator training and people can fly directly into buildings... it is rather amazing.

again the KISS rule... try to look it up.

Completely wrong. The plane pointed to the building 2-3 seconds before impact not before.

DGM

13th October 2009, 07:28 AM

No I mean it was nearly impossible to pull off for an untrained pilot to approach a target at such an angle and to turn the plane at the right moment 5 seconds before impact at 600 mph.
Maybe the hijackers had some kind of training not revelead by the investigation. Anyway NISTs data on UA 175 impact is wrong.

Present your pictures please.
You're still assuming he meant to do it. That's why I asked you if it was possible for the aircraft. Would it not be possible that he just kept adding input to keep the tower in the windshield? This is a simple question, why are you having such difficulty with it?

TruthersLie

13th October 2009, 07:29 AM

No I mean it was nearly impossible to pull off for an untrained pilot to approach a target at such an angle and to turn the plane at the right moment 5 seconds before impact at 600 mph.
Maybe the hijackers had some kind of training not revelead by the investigation. Anyway NISTs data on UA 175 impact is wrong.

Present your pictures please.

You keep using these words.

I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

All of the hijacker pilots were licensed pilots. several had ATC with HUNDREDS of hours of flight time.

It isn't that hard... it wasn't like they were landing in a major crosswind, or tryng to walk away from the jets.

try again paully

paulheinze

13th October 2009, 07:31 AM

You keep using these words.

I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

All of the hijacker pilots were licensed pilots. several had ATC with HUNDREDS of hours of flight time.

It isn't that hard... it wasn't like they were landing in a major crosswind, or tryng to walk away from the jets.

try again paully

planes land at 600mph all the time. very convincing. As ridiculous as always.

paulheinze

13th October 2009, 07:33 AM

You're still assuming he meant to do it. That's why I asked you if it was possible for the aircraft. Would it not be possible that he just kept adding input to keep the tower in the windshield? This is a simple question, why are you having such difficulty with it?

Why would the pilot wait to correct his flight path until 5 seconds before impact?

TruthersLie

13th October 2009, 07:35 AM

planes land at 600mph all the time. very convincing. As ridiculous as always.

and reading for comprehension FAILS you again.

going 600 mph and pointing the nose of the jet into a target you can see from miles away is pretty straight forward.

You make the BS claim that they couldn't make those turns to hit the towers.

10 minutes on a simulator and people who have NEVER flown before can hit the pentagon.. amazing at that isn't it?

Turning at 600 mph is rather simple. You turn the yoke, or you use the pedals and shift. It is rather simple. and we are talking about licensed pilots with several HUNDRED hours of flight time.

It would require a lot of skill if they were making massive turns trying to land the aircraft and managed to walk away from it. (that is what the original quote you replied to means... try to READ FOR COMPREHENSION paully... I can help you sign up for my wifes online reading comprehension class if you want... just pm me.)

Dave Rogers

13th October 2009, 07:38 AM

Why would the pilot wait to correct his flight path until 5 seconds before impact?

What makes you think he waited till then?

Dave

DGM

13th October 2009, 07:39 AM

Why would the pilot wait to correct his flight path until 5 seconds before impact?
How do you know that was his plan? Your telling us this is impossible for a pilot of his training. Who knows why. Your not following me.

funk de fino

13th October 2009, 07:40 AM

I cited the videos. Denying a discussion shows you are running out of arguments. Denying the difficulty of hitting the buildings by flying a curve at 600 mph is pure ignorance.

Do you think they move in straight lines?

MortFurd

13th October 2009, 07:41 AM

Why would the pilot wait to correct his flight path until 5 seconds before impact?
Oh, I don't know.

Maybe because he's crap lousy pilot who realized he was going to miss entirely if he didn't do something drastic and like, RIGHT NOW!

funk de fino

13th October 2009, 07:43 AM

Why would the pilot wait to correct his flight path until 5 seconds before impact?

You dont know anything about flying or aircraft do you?

TruthersLie

13th October 2009, 08:16 AM

Completely wrong. The plane pointed to the building 2-3 seconds before impact not before.

Again paully.. now why would that happen?

robot controlled jets?
remote controlled jets?
they were aiming for a specific office?

or, the pilot (being a rather ****** pilot) was about to miss the towers and went "OH ****" and then pulled so he would hit it.

it isn't rocket science paully.

TruthersLie

13th October 2009, 08:19 AM

You dont know anything about flying or aircraft do you?

of course not...
and he doesn't know anything about demolitions, thermite or any of the other things he trys to post on.

ignorance rocks.
But he doesn't need to.. he is a YOUTUBE WARRIOR FOR TRUTH!!!

TruthersLie

13th October 2009, 08:28 AM

Yet again paully, we can see you didn't even bother to READ this thread (reading for comprehension again?)

Start at the beginning of the thread, and then read this one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107252) (which ryan mackey links to on the first freaking page)

Now go back and try to read for comprehension.

ktesibios

13th October 2009, 10:14 AM

The videos I cited disprove NIST's estimate

If you read section 6.2, Motion Analysis Methodology, of NCSTAR1-2 (starts at p. 266 of the pdf), you will see that NIST list the source material they used and the measurement and analysis methods they used to derive position, orientation and velocity for the impacting airplanes.

Are you planning to present your own measurements with an adequate explanation of your methodology, or are you just going to repeat your unsupported assertion like an Audio-Animatronics dummy?

There is another fact which supports the accuracy of NIST's estimates of the initial conditions of the impacts:

When that data on position, orientation and velocity were used as inputs to the LS-DYNA impact simulations, the results, which are very sensitive to initial conditions, predicted exterior damage which tallied closely with the damage actually visible in photographs of the stricken buildings.

When I say "tallied closely" I don't mean a twoofer-style "well, it looks about right to me, man". If you read Section 7.10.1, Comparison with Observables on WTC1, (p. 382 of the pdf) and Section 7.10.2, Comparison with Observables on WTC2, (p. 391), you will see that they went through the impact areas column by column, checking the photographs to determine if they showed the location and mode of failure for each particular column, comparing the actual damage to that predicted by the model, and so on for each column on the impact faces.

If the initial conditions for the airplanes' position, orientation and velocity at impact had been significantly in error, this would not have happened.

After you have presented your measurements and calculations in support of your claim about the impact angle of UA175, you might want to try to explain the correspondence between simulation and reality.

GlennB

13th October 2009, 10:17 AM

Having watched Paul's YouTube video (and wishing for those 8 minutes of my life back again, and therefore not wanting to watch it again) a few things spring to mind -

1. Calculating flying times by trying to synchronise RADES data with Seismic records might not result in pin-point accuracy vis-a-vis speed and descent rates. I dunno, maybe I'm an old fusspot.

2. Paul .... try to understand this ....

Picture yourself at the end of an airport runway, with an airliner coming in to land, directly towards you (that is the important bit). You film this event. Later you edit black marks onto the film, second by second, to track the angle of descent of the aircraft. You conclude that it landed at 90° from the horizontal like a helicopter coming down vertically. Does this ring any bells regarding that video? Perspective is the key word to comprehend here.

Best,

Glenn

lapman

13th October 2009, 10:48 AM

planes land at 600mph all the time. very convincing. As ridiculous as always.
Thinking that a pilot would need special training to fly an aircraft into a 210 foot wide building is even more ridiculous. If you look at the video, you see that he over compensates. Especially the wing wobble right after he pulls out of the dive. This is what pilots that are used to flying smaller aircraft do. The larger aircraft doesn't react like the smaller one so the pilot over compensates. Of course, to a twoofer, this is "expert flying." To us real pilots, we see it for what it really is.

Mongrel

13th October 2009, 12:41 PM

Thinking that a pilot would need special training to fly an aircraft into a 210 foot wide building is even more ridiculous. If you look at the video, you see that he over compensates. Especially the wing wobble right after he pulls out of the dive. This is what pilots that are used to flying smaller aircraft do. The larger aircraft doesn't react like the smaller one so the pilot over compensates. Of course, to a twoofer, this is "expert flying." To us real pilots, we see it for what it really is.

This also the grisly fact that every other pilot is expecting\hoping to walk away from their landing. If some sicko decides he wants to throw his life away that (probably, I am not a pilot) opens up a whole lot of options that most pilots wouldn't consider

lapman

13th October 2009, 12:46 PM

This also the grisly fact that every other pilot is expecting\hoping to walk away from their landing. If some sicko decides he wants to throw his life away that (probably, I am not a pilot) opens up a whole lot of options that most pilots wouldn't consider
Exactly. Look at the Kamakazi pilots. Near the end of the war, most had less than 200 hours total time and barely any time in the aircraft they flew. Yet they were able to hit a moving ship that was often smaller than the facade of the WTC!

Juniversal

13th October 2009, 01:10 PM

Did you manage to fly into position at your first try? Did you do it at 600mph?Have you ever driven a Nascar 180 mph on spiraling track? Do you think it would be possible for an individual with a drivers license to smash a Nascar car into a wall at 200+ mph even without training driving a Nascar track?

bill smith

13th October 2009, 01:34 PM

Nah....I have audio of a half dozen professional commercial pilots saying that they could not have hit those buildings one time out of six attempts at 600 mph.

That makes it extremely likely that the planes were remotely guided. Have you not seen the flashes that came out of the exact impact locations in both buildings an instant prior to impact ?

lapman

13th October 2009, 01:42 PM

Nah....I have audio of a half dozen professional commercial pilots saying that they could not have hit those buildings one time out of six attempts at 600 mph.Post the link.

That makes it extremely likely that the planes were remotely guided. Have you not seen the flashes that came out of the exact impact locations in both buildings an instant prior to impact ?That's a lie, but we all know that you have no interest in the truth.

bill smith

13th October 2009, 01:54 PM

Post the link.
That's a lie, but we all know that you have no interest in the truth.

I'm not 100% certain which thing you think I'm lying about so I will just give you proof of both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78&feature=player_embedded Pilots discuss Tower hits

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7PncGkdFPI Flash Analysis plus

lapman

13th October 2009, 02:08 PM

I'm not 100% certain which thing you think I'm lying about so I will just give you proof of both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78&feature=player_embedded Pilots discuss Tower hits

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7PncGkdFPI Flash Analysis plus
The part that only a guided plane could do that. If you can't do it in the cockpit, you can't do it at all. It would be harder for the remote pilot to do it since the field of view is so small. Well, these "pilots" just blew it. The Hani maneuver was anything but graceful and it is something 100% of all pilots learn very early in their training and master before their first solo. Glider pilots especially. So it's obvious that whomever it is on the show is not who they claim they are.

ETA. On the second video, once he mention the "Silverstein admission," I stopped it there. Zero credibility.

KDLarsen

13th October 2009, 02:20 PM

bill smith

13th October 2009, 02:28 PM

The part that only a guided plane could do that. If you can't do it in the cockpit, you can't do it at all. It would be harder for the remote pilot to do it since the field of view is so small. Well, these "pilots" just blew it. The Hani maneuver was anything but graceful and it is something 100% of all pilots learn very early in their training and master before their first solo. Glider pilots especially. So it's obvious that whomever it is on the show is not who they claim they are.

ETA. On the second video, once he mention the "Silverstein admission," I stopped it there. Zero credibility.

If there were homing devices in the buildings as I suspect he planes wuld have had pinpoint accuracy. This was proven by the flashes in the two buildngs exactly at the points of impact as seen in the video I labelled 'flash analysis plus'.. These were probably incendiaries to ensure a proper ignition of the jet fuel and the resulting photogenic fireball.

DGM

13th October 2009, 02:30 PM

Bill;

There are more than a half a dozen pilots on this forum that say they could do it. Now what?

funk de fino

13th October 2009, 02:31 PM

bill smith

13th October 2009, 02:38 PM

Bill;

There are more than a half a dozen pilots on this forum that say they could do it. Now what?

Nah...I will go with pilots like John Lear with 19,000 hours in over a hundred types of plane, with seventeen world records behind him and so on and on. Then there is that other Truther Pilot with the 20,000-plus hours. They both say they couldn't do it. I will go with them (and Rob Balsamo too of course) I am less than impressed with most of the jref guys I encounter. No credibility you see.

waypastvne

13th October 2009, 02:41 PM

Bill the most likely explanation for the flash is the;

"CREW OXYGEN BOTTLE IN RIGHT SIDE, E & E COMPARTMENT

15381

first page

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/arff/arff767.pdf

lapman

13th October 2009, 02:41 PM

bill smith

13th October 2009, 02:44 PM

The same John Lear that believes there is a sub base under Nevada or some inland place like that? Yeah real credible.

I have some great audio with John Lear. Want me to post it ?

CurtC

13th October 2009, 02:47 PM

DGM

13th October 2009, 02:49 PM

bill smith

13th October 2009, 02:51 PM

Oh, I'm sure it must have been that and not just the flash you'd expect when you smash two giant pieces of metal together at 600 mph.

Ah...but you see the flash was before the impact as the video I posted labelled 'flash analysis plus' beautifully demonstrates.

KDLarsen

13th October 2009, 02:52 PM

bill smith

13th October 2009, 03:02 PM

Both of whom have an agenda to push, so naturally they won't admit to the maneuvre being possible.

Getting John Lear or Balsamo to admit to it, would be like asking the pope to do a critical review of the bible :boggled:

But you jrefers always say that about anybody in the Truth Movement. Even that the 1,000 degreed and licenced architects and engineers in ae911truth.org all have agendas according to you. Jeez ...and you say we're paranoid ? lol

paulheinze

13th October 2009, 03:05 PM

Picture yourself at the end of an airport runway, with an airliner coming in to land, directly towards you (that is the important bit). You film this event. Later you edit black marks onto the film, second by second, to track the angle of descent of the aircraft. You conclude that it landed at 90° from the horizontal like a helicopter coming down vertically. Does this ring any bells regarding that video? Perspective is the key word to comprehend here.

Best,

Glenn

If you understood Perspective you would know that two video angles are enough to determine motion in space. He used virtually every video available. And the flight path he determined as 3D model fits to all of them, disproving the NIST estimate.
But if you have substantial objections to his measurements I am open to here them.

twinstead

13th October 2009, 03:08 PM

But you jrefers always say that about anybody in the Truth Movement. Even that the 1,000 degreed and licenced architects and engineers in ae911truth.org all have agendas according to you. Jeez ...and you say we're paranoid ? lol

LOL 1000 degreed and licenced architects and engineers. OF course. Oh, and speaking of saying people have agendas, what do you think about the hundreds of contributers to the NIST report. What's up with them?

ktesibios

13th October 2009, 03:10 PM

If there were homing devices in the buildings as I suspect he planes wuld have had pinpoint accuracy.

If there were homing devices in the buildings there would have been no need for al-Shehhi to yank the plane around the way he did in hitting WTC2. Feedback systems generally act continuously to minimize their error signal. If the plane had been under the control of a system designed to guide it into a beacon of some sort what we would expect would be a smooth course all the way to impact.

Pantaz

13th October 2009, 03:14 PM

planes land at 600mph all the time.

I'm not aware of any aircraft with a landing speed anywhere close to 600 mph. Heck, the Space Shuttle lands at only about 220 mph.

bill smith

13th October 2009, 03:18 PM

LOL 1000 degreed and licenced architects and engineers. OF course. Oh, and speaking of saying people have agendas, what do you think about the hundreds of contributers to the NIST report. What's up with them?

They were simply employees working on little pieces of detail and with no view or opinion of the overall picture. So I don't think much about them at all really.
They are nothing like as impressive s the Achitects and Engineers of ae911truth.prg who have emade their decision based on a full knowledge of the big picture- and put their careers on the line by showing their patriotism and signng the petition for a new 9/11 enquiry.

twinstead

13th October 2009, 03:21 PM

They were simply employees working on little pieces of detail and with no view or opinion of the overall picture. So I don't think much about them at all really.
They are nothing like as impressive s the Achitects and Engineers of ae911truth.prg who have emade their decision based on a full knowledge of the big picture- and put their careers on the line by showing their patriotism and signng the petition for a new 9/11 enquiry.

Oh I see. The contributers to the NIST report didn't know what they were doing. The didn't have the "Big Picture". They were just drones doing the bidding of their bosses. Gotcha. They're just cowards afraid to lose their pensions, right?

But the "Impressive" AE911, now those "EXPERTS" are blessed with the full knowledge of the Big Picture, and are patriots risking their very livelihood to expose the truth.

Do you have ANY idea what a load of CRAP that sounds like? Spoken like a true cult member.

bill smith

13th October 2009, 03:22 PM

If there were homing devices in the buildings there would have been no need for al-Shehhi to yank the plane around the way he did in hitting WTC2. Feedback systems generally act continuously to minimize their error signal. If the plane had been under the control of a system designed to guide it into a beacon of some sort what we would expect would be a smooth course all the way to impact.
Unless a little flutter was built in for the authenticity of course ? I might even do it myself if it was me.

DGM

13th October 2009, 03:24 PM

bill smith

13th October 2009, 03:27 PM

Fortunately once they sign it they never have to do anything for the cause again. Just don't change your mind because your names there until you pester them to remove it.(and sometimes that doesn't even work)

Nobody ever thinks that 9/11 was an inside job and then changes their mind.

DGM

13th October 2009, 03:32 PM

Nobody ever thinks that 9/11 was an inside job and then changes their mind.
Wrong again. There are many threads about just that (and not only on JREF).

bill smith

13th October 2009, 03:40 PM

Wrong again. There are many threads about just that (and not only on JREF).

Shills to a man DGM....Shills to a man. Did you ever see or hear of the Truther who didn't think that WTC7 was a controlled demolition ?

So are you telling me that it is posible that they once thought that WTC7 was a controlled Demolition and then changed their minds ? Don't make me laugh.

This is just one of the latest Shill moves. You know...'The Truth Movement is dead'.....the Truth Movement is violent' ...'The Truth Movememnt is anti-semitic' etc etc. ...This one is supposed to be 'Many of the Truth Movement are converting '. Another pathetic manifestation of Shilldom.

W.D.Clinger

13th October 2009, 03:40 PM

I'm not 100% certain which thing you think I'm lying about so I will just give you proof of both.

Uh, that first URL has no relevance to the WTC towers. It's mostly Rob Balsamo talking about Flight 77 and the Pentagon.

Nah...I will go with pilots like John Lear with 19,000 hours in over a hundred types of plane, with seventeen world records behind him and so on and on.

This is the same John Lear who has written of alien shape-shifting lizards, MJ-12, and so on.

That would not be relevant if Bill were making a valid argument, but Bill is just arguing from the authority of John Lear and a handful of other sources. Hence Lear's reliability is relevant.

I will go with them (and Rob Balsamo too of course) I am less than impressed with most of the jref guys I encounter. No credibility you see.

Speaking of credibility, Rob Balsamo was the fellow who (indirectly) introduced me to JREF.

In his very first post at a guitar newsgroup I frequent, Rob accused me of being a "paid Pentagon blogger". His subsequent posts lived up to the promise of that first post. Addressing an airline pilot with about ten times as much experience, for example, Rob suggested "you get your money back from the Cracker Jack box that gave you your flight decoder ring and Capt status."

I'm not yet allowed to post a URL, but a Google search for "Rob Balsamo, Truth Hijacker" will locate the story of my first exposure to Rob Balsamo and what Rob did to earn my low opinion of his credibility.

Will

twinstead

13th October 2009, 03:42 PM

Nobody ever thinks that 9/11 was an inside job and then changes their mind.

You're kidding, right? There are many ex-truthers on this forum.

Regardless, this is the same old same old. You keep on thinking your little cult is going somewhere and is right about this inside job. There's no in between; it either is right or it's wrong. If it's right you're a hero. If it's wrong you look like a complete moron.

I'm just going to wait and see. I could care less what you say.

Audible Click

13th October 2009, 03:44 PM

Nobody ever thinks that 9/11 was an inside job and then changes their mind.

Obviously you cherry pick what threads to read.

waypastvne

13th October 2009, 03:50 PM

I'm not yet allowed to post a URL, but a Google search for "Rob Balsamo, Truth Hijacker" will locate the story of my first exposure to Rob Balsamo and what Rob did to earn my low opinion of his credibility

Link

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/balsamo.html

I like this part.

When you get right down to it, the only reason not to consider more plausible alternatives to Rob Balsamo's favored interpretation of the FDR data is that Rob might call you stupid. Since Rob is already calling us stupid, I see no downside.

TruthersLie

13th October 2009, 07:14 PM

If there were homing devices in the buildings as I suspect he planes wuld have had pinpoint accuracy. This was proven by the flashes in the two buildngs exactly at the points of impact as seen in the video I labelled 'flash analysis plus'.. These were probably incendiaries to ensure a proper ignition of the jet fuel and the resulting photogenic fireball.

Billy girl your ignorance is showing again.

can water cut through steel?
Can jet fuel cut through steel?

In the 500 mph jet into concrete video what do you see justs the jet strikes the concrete? a flash. What is that flash billy girl? kinetic energy as the jet is impacting the wall.

You really do need to TRY to understand some basic science.

TruthersLie

13th October 2009, 07:18 PM

But you jrefers always say that about anybody in the Truth Movement. Even that the 1,000 degreed and licenced architects and engineers in ae911truth.org all have agendas according to you. Jeez ...and you say we're paranoid ? lol

No billy girl.

I'm saying
1. you don't know how to do math. It is 904 degreed OR licensed architects and engineers. That is not 1,000 by any mark.

2. you don't know how to read for comprehension. 904 degreed OR licensed architects is NOT 904 degreed AND licensed architects and engineers

3. You don't know how to write competently. see #2 above.

4. You twist and distort facts to LIE to support an agenda.

5. You haven't met a piece of woo that you don't like (unless it is so completely and utterly pwned that you run and hide from it ie heiwa's crushdown not possible woo....)

Arus808

13th October 2009, 08:56 PM

This is correct. But the pilots on 9/11 did not use this approach. The actual trajectory is difficult and highly improbable for an unexperienced pilot.

Utter bull...Flight Simulators; they even tested the WTC flight path of those planes in flight simulators; put totally new people who never been in a FS or flown a plane before, and they were able to crash the planes into the towers.

NO experience needed

Arus808

13th October 2009, 09:00 PM

planes land at 600mph all the time. very convincing. As ridiculous as always.

even more utter bull. planes crash at 600 mph; no plane built in existence can land safely at that speed. Even jet fighters do not land at 600mph

Approach speed to land is less than 300 mph. any faster and the plane will not land safely

Brainache

13th October 2009, 09:04 PM

even more utter bull. planes crash at 600 mph; no plane built in existence can land safely at that speed.

Approach speed to land is less than 300 mph. any faster and the plane will not land safely

I think Paul was trying to argue that crashing a plane at 600mph is more difficult than landing at 100mph(or whatever speed they normally land). Just why he would think that crashing is more difficult than a safe landing is another question...

Arus808

13th October 2009, 09:08 PM

crashing more difficult? I crashed in a flight sim just taking off from an airstrip.

CurtC

13th October 2009, 09:30 PM

Ah...but you see the flash was before the impact as the video I posted labelled 'flash analysis plus' beautifully demonstrates.

You mean where it says "just as it hits the building there's a flash"?

Near the end, he does assert that the flash occurred before the plane hit the building, but he shows pictures of the flash as the plane hits the building. Where does he get the idea that it happened before when it so clearly happened as?

apathoid

13th October 2009, 10:29 PM

About the flash; the same exact thing happens when the F-4 hits a concrete wall. I don't want to speculate as to the nature of the flash...because I'd hate to sound like a truther moron, but here it is...

LWL1hwPQFoo

If you look carefully at the 4:24 mark, you'll see the flash. Any ideas, Bill?

ETA: And I thought you were a no-planer? Does the term 'cognitive dissonance' mean anything to you?

beachnut

13th October 2009, 10:55 PM

Nah...I will go with pilots like John Lear with 19,000 hours in over a hundred types of plane, with seventeen world records behind him and so on and on. Then there is that other Truther Pilot with the 20,000-plus hours. They both say they couldn't do it. I will go with them (and Rob Balsamo too of course) I am less than impressed with most of the jref guys I encounter. No credibility you see.
John who sees aliens is your best source for the biggest lies on 911. Good job finding the biggest idiot on 911 flying issues besides Balsamo. The SON of the man who brought us the Lear Jet, not the guy who built Lear Jet up, but the moron son who sees aliens among us. You and John Lear are both delusional on 911, Lear has aliens all around us, and he said we have been to mars with a manned mission. Good job bill smith you found John Lear and he has the same evidence you have to support your delusions on 911, zero. You could compare your massive piles of ample evidence easy, it fits into the same box vaporware comes in.

UNLoVedRebel

13th October 2009, 11:12 PM

Just about every beachnut post deserves its own sig.

GlennB

13th October 2009, 11:16 PM

I see the thread became polluted by a vast spillage of smith overnight ....

TruthersLie

14th October 2009, 12:24 AM

even more utter bull. planes crash at 600 mph; no plane built in existence can land safely at that speed. Even jet fighters do not land at 600mph

Approach speed to land is less than 300 mph. any faster and the plane will not land safely

Arus.

I have to defend paully because you are taking his reply out of context. Though the context makes it even FUNNIER because you can then see his crappy reading comprehension.

I was replying to his new and bizarre claim about how the planes were flown. I pointed out it was rather easy to fly into a building as opposed to

It isn't that hard... it wasn't like they were landing in a major crosswind, or tryng to walk away from the jets.

try again paully

to which he replies

planes land at 600 mph all the time

Now he is trying to dismiss my statement.

yet that shows that he has no reading for comprehension skills and completely and utterly missed my point. I never said anything about them landing at 600 mph... I was pointing out that flying into a building for a trained pilot is rather easy.. unlike landing a jet in a major crosswind, or unlike if they pulled those flying stunts to then LAND the plane.

of course after getting owned on his piss poor reading comprehension, paully has decided not to answer...

gee... I wonder why.

bill smith

14th October 2009, 01:14 AM

John who sees aliens is your best source for the biggest lies on 911. Good job finding the biggest idiot on 911 flying issues besides Balsamo. The SON of the man who brought us the Lear Jet, not the guy who built Lear Jet up, but the moron son who sees aliens among us. You and John Lear are both delusional on 911, Lear has aliens all around us, and he said we have been to mars with a manned mission. Good job bill smith you found John Lear and he has the same evidence you have to support your delusions on 911, zero. You could compare your massive piles of ample evidence easy, it fits into the same box vaporware comes in.

I do't mind what John does in his spare time. For the rest he is one of the world's most experienced pilots with a 40-year 19,000 hour history of aviation as everthing from being a test-pilot to setting at least seventeen world records. He flew airliners for many years and says that that a 767 could not fly that that fast at only 1,000 feet, and that even if it could, nine times out of ten the pilot would miss the building altogether. Listen to the audio. It's very enjoyable and instructive. Check the videpclip out too.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7461916360683592003 John Lear

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-9EMrna-WU&feature=PlayList&p=A4F8F4BD8543597E&index=9&playnext=5&playnext_from=PL 747 747 Speed Simulation

** Incidentally you probably believe in that invisible man in the sky who controls everythng- You know, the one who sits on the cloud with the harp. I don't give you a hard time about that. lol

apathoid

14th October 2009, 01:43 AM

(John Lear) flew airliners for many years and says that that a 767 could not fly that that fast at only 1,000 feet, and that even if it could, nine times out of ten the pilot would miss the building altogether. Listen to the audio. It's very enjoyable and instructive. Check the videpclip out too.

John Lear has many type ratings but a 767 rating is not one of them. Funny how out of the thousands of pilots that do have a 767 type rating, none have said the same thing.

BTW what is he trying to say with that sort of argument? That the ATC radar data is not accurate and the plane was going slower than the known estimates, that the plane not a 767 but some other plane which happens to look exactly like a 767, or that the "plane" was not a plane at all, but was actually a shape-shifting alien vessel which can double as a hologram if need be?

W.D.Clinger

14th October 2009, 10:37 AM

I do't mind what John does in his spare time.

If you didn't care what John Lear does in his spare time, then you wouldn't have cited his views on 9/11. Woo is John Lear's hobby, and 9/11 woo is just part of that.

** Incidentally you probably believe in that invisible man in the sky who controls everythng- You know, the one who sits on the cloud with the harp. I don't give you a hard time about that. lol

Am I to infer that you don't actually know what beachnut believes, and are just making stuff up? And you think you deserve credit for not giving someone a hard time about stuff you make up?

If we may return to reality: Whatever beachnut's beliefs may be, they are irrelevant because no one is arguing from beachnut's authority. You, however, are arguing that something is so just because John Lear says so. By constructing your argument on John Lear's credibility, you invited a close look at all the other stuff John Lear says is so.

Will

bill smith

14th October 2009, 11:36 AM

If you didn't care what John Lear does in his spare time, then you wouldn't have cited his views on 9/11. Woo is John Lear's hobby, and 9/11 woo is just part of that.

Am I to infer that you don't actually know what beachnut believes, and are just making stuff up? And you think you deserve credit for not giving someone a hard time about stuff you make up?

If we may return to reality: Whatever beachnut's beliefs may be, they are irrelevant because no one is arguing from beachnut's authority. You, however, are arguing that something is so just because John Lear says so. By constructing your argument on John Lear's credibility, you invited a close look at all the other stuff John Lear says is so.

Will
No I am seperating a stupendous 40-year 19,000 hour flying career from whatever esoteric beliefs John might privately have. I am using his unmatched expertise in the field of anything to do with flying as confirmation that he knows his profession inside out and can be taken at his word on the subject

Macgyver1968

14th October 2009, 11:47 AM

Obviously you cherry pick what threads to read.

No..he cherry picks what he thinks will piss us off the most...hence this new little "shill" routine. Bill just trolls to get a reaction. It's what gets him off.

Thunder

14th October 2009, 12:05 PM

Nobody ever thinks that 9/11 was an inside job and then changes their mind.

I did. i emailed my entire family about 9-11 being an inside job. and I gave my parents a long lecture. it frightened them.

then, in the middle of 2006, I saw the light, and never looked back.

Thunder

14th October 2009, 12:07 PM

Shills to a man DGM....Shills to a man. Did you ever see or hear of the Truther who didn't think that WTC7 was a controlled demolition ?

So are you telling me that it is posible that they once thought that WTC7 was a controlled Demolition and then changed their minds ? Don't make me laugh.

you know, its very common for cult members to believe that if someone leaves their faith, that means they were either secret agents or didn't really have true faith.

it really hurts to know that someone could believe in and then REJECT 9-11 truth huh? hurts a bunch.

ImANiceGuy

14th October 2009, 01:45 PM

I'm not aware of any aircraft with a landing speed anywhere close to 600 mph. Heck, the Space Shuttle lands at only about 220 mph.

even more utter bull. planes crash at 600 mph; no plane built in existence can land safely at that speed. Even jet fighters do not land at 600mph

Approach speed to land is less than 300 mph. any faster and the plane will not land safely

Paulheinz was being sarcastic in his original statement, because TrutherslieEdited to remove personal remarks. had compared landing a jet in a crosswind to the jets hitting the towers. ie. it's not done at 600mph, so it is incomparable.

This is what happens when you're prejudice. Classic jref example.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

George152

14th October 2009, 01:46 PM

John Lear has many type ratings but a 767 rating is not one of them. Funny how out of the thousands of pilots that do have a 767 type rating, none have said the same thing.

BTW what is he trying to say with that sort of argument? That the ATC radar data is not accurate and the plane was going slower than the known estimates, that the plane not a 767 but some other plane which happens to look exactly like a 767, or that the "plane" was not a plane at all, but was actually a shape-shifting alien vessel which can double as a hologram if need be?

To much time has been wasted trying to explain to the 'believers' as to how their pet theories about aviation just are not credible.
And as for that 'pilotsfor911' site it should be spelt "Pile-itsfor911"

Audible Click

14th October 2009, 01:53 PM

No I am seperating a stupendous 40-year 19,000 hour flying career from whatever esoteric beliefs John might privately have. I am using his unmatched expertise in the field of anything to do with flying as confirmation that he knows his profession inside out and can be taken at his word on the subject

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/266624a29957ca8198.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16602)

TruthersLie

14th October 2009, 01:56 PM

Paulheinz was being sarcastic in his original statement, because Trutherslie(stupid name) had compared landing a jet in a crosswind to the jets hitting the towers. ie. it's not done at 600mph, so it is incomparable.

and yours is much better? At least mine is accurate.

I compared the piloting skill required. And guess what genius? Landing a jet in a massive cross wind (landing in general) is MUCH harder than pulling on the yoke to change directions.

Again (for the new twoof), the 2 hardest things to do when flying. Landing and then taking off (in that order). Then things get easier. Generally once you are in the air, it is pretty easy to do.

And you ALSO show piss poor reading comprehension. That is not what was said, nor what was inferred. go back and read it again. this time maybe ask a 6th grader to help you out there with the comprehension issues.

UNLoVedRebel

14th October 2009, 02:06 PM

I did. i emailed my entire family about 9-11 being an inside job. and I gave my parents a long lecture. it frightened them.

then, in the middle of 2006, I saw the light, and never looked back.

I'm shocked you got duped in the first place. I'm very disappointed in you parky. And you call yourself a Jew.

NutCracker

14th October 2009, 02:25 PM

Paulheinz was being sarcastic in his original statement, because Trutherslie(stupid name) had compared landing a jet in a crosswind to the jets hitting the towers. ie. it's not done at 600mph, so it is incomparable.

This is what happens when you're prejudice. Classic jref example.

HAHHAHA. Oh booooy, the Trusters' reading comprehension. Let me paraphrase the discussion up to that point:

Some truther: That turn is at that speed is way difficult! Impossible!
TL: Real pilots beg to differ. It is not a difficult maneuver.
It is not that they where trying to land with a heavy cross-wind.

Now, is what TruthersLie was trying to say, sinking in yet? No? Let me help you. Landing with heavy crosswind IS difficult. Does the message come across yet? No. Let me help you. TruthersLie was telling that the hijackers did a maneuver that is not difficult, in TWO different ways. Ok? Got that? Thank you.

Arus808

14th October 2009, 08:58 PM

that a 767 could not fly that that fast at only 1,000 feet, and that even if it could, nine times out of ten the pilot would miss the building altogether.

air shows and the pilots who show off these planes would disagree greatly

many air shows done in Italy fly these planes for air shows...doing low passes at less than 1000 feet at various speeds.

Here's some passes in Budapest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA6xFshz1uQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SniytP1v7r8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYr4Uf3CUkA

Bobert

14th October 2009, 09:21 PM

More of these meaningless statements please.

Douche

Reheat

14th October 2009, 10:08 PM

It's quitre humorous that most pilots expressing the opinion that hitting the towers at high speed at low level is difficult have never flown * any * airplane that fast/that low (including Lear). They take-off, climb to altitude, and then descend to land. All of their time below 10,000' MSL is below 250 Knots (due to FAA Regulations).

I have (easily) over 500 hours (maybe more) below 1,000" AGL, all above 450 Knots, some of that time above 600 Knots and most below 500' AGL. I also have time in heavy jets similar, but heavier than the 7X7 and I can assure you it's not difficult. One does need to pay attention tho'. :D

There are many things infinitely more difficult than hitting a huge building with clear skies and light winds with no regard for aircraft limitations or comfort, but that involves war stories no one wants to hear!

ULTIMA1

15th October 2009, 12:16 AM

I have (easily) over 500 hours (maybe more) below 1,000" AGL, all above 450 Knots, some of that time above 600 Knots and most below 500' AGL.

So you have over 500 hours. At least one of the hijackers had 100 hours or less total flying time.

I have yet to see anyone show any evidence that questions Lears aviation experience and background.

Brainache

15th October 2009, 12:23 AM

So you have over 500 hours. At least one of the hijackers had 100 hours or less total flying time.

I have yet to see anyone show any evidence that questions Lears aviation experience and background.

I have yet to see anyone show any evidence that what Lear claims is true.

We have seen Jumbo Jets flying at high speeds at very low altitude. We have noted that no other qualified pilots anywhere in the whole world claim that those jets couldn't fly the way they did. We have heard pilots say that none of these manoevres was particularly difficult.

We know that Lear is a raving nutjob, so why do you listen to him instead of the thousands of non-nutjob pilots who contradict him?

ULTIMA1

15th October 2009, 12:28 AM

I have yet to see anyone show any evidence that what Lear claims is true.

I notice how you completly refused to repsond the to fact of at least one hijacker only having 100 hours or less total flying time.

Also there area lot of senior pilots who do agree with some of what Lear states.

Brainache

15th October 2009, 12:36 AM

I notice how you completly refused to repsond the to fact of at least one hijacker only having 100 hours or less total flying time.

Also there area lot of senior pilots who do agree with some of what Lear states.

100 hours is enough if all you want to do is steer the thing into a big building and kill everyone.

A lot of senior pilots? How many is that? Compared to the number of senior pilots in the world, what percentage would you say agreed with Lear?

Hokulele

15th October 2009, 12:38 AM

I notice how you completly refused to repsond the to fact of at least one hijacker only having 100 hours or less total flying time.

I seriously doubt any of the hijackers were considering this as a career.