What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

reply to post by Lillydale

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas

There is the evidence. You know, all that evidence that 9/11 truth kiddies deny exists so they can claim, dismissively, that there is only an official "story"

...You claim others have no evidence to back up their claim, whether they make a claim or not. You have never backed up anything you have said.

I personally think there's lots of evidence to back up the claims that the plane wasn't hit by a plane. I certainly agree that even as he criticizes us for dismissing the official story's alleged evidence, he's doing the same with ours.

The issue is whether there is "proof". The strongest point in my view is the pull up that the plane would have to have made; I'm discussing that one with weedwacker.

As to jt's claim of "all that evidence", I disagree that he and his fellow OS supporters haven't laid out what they -consider- to be evidence. I've countered this point of his, though, atleast twice. I believe the last time I brought it up was in post #147:

Originally posted by scott3xThe alleged evidence you believe in is essentially the official story. This is what I've been trying to get you to see. I wholeheartedly agree that the evidence is what matters. What you don't seem to understand is that the official story's alleged evidence is full of unsubstantiated and at times even contradictory claims.

He has yet to respond. To this, I would add "highly improbable if not downright impossible" (I'm thinking of the passenger DNA that was allegedly found where an alleged "fireball" was supposed to have broken down the E ring wall; DNA is fairly heat sensitive; considering the fact that there is no evidence that any passenger bodies were recovered, it strains credulity to its limit to believe that virtually every passenger's DNA was recovered from the site)

Originally posted by Lillydale
You insist that there is no such thing as an "official story" and yet you ignore me every time I ask you what I should call the story told to us by officials.

Yes, he seems to be ignoring us on this, so let's ignore him on his 'no official story' claim and just call him an OS supporter; if the shoe fits...

Originally posted by Lillydale
Worst of all though, you do not get it. You are arguing a point that was never really made in order to avoid having to actually defend your BS. There is a reason that the term "official story" is in quotes. You have no idea why it is in quotes as evidenced by this post. You quoted 'story.' We all agree that it is actually a story. There is no debate about that. It is the 'official' part that is not taken so seriously.

Personally, I take it fairly seriously. I think it's that "official" part which keeps on blocking us from doing a proper investigation. I think too many people are far too trusting of their government.

Originally posted by Lillydale
This completely demonstrates who and what you are. You have no logic or independent thought. You have nothing to offer outside schoolyard taunts. You can repeat things like 'canard' 800 times but you cannot figure out how A and B fit together. Thank you for showing how little you understand one argument you have been trying to have for months. You do not even know what you are arguing about.

I wouldn't go that far :-p. I think he does have some logic; flawed, but it's there. As to taunts, not sure. Certainly, he engages in relatively mild insults, but then it's not like our side doesn't. I think he knows what he's arguing about, but I also think that he shies away from defending the official story in favour of attacking ours. Now, if he were to examine his own position more carefully..

[edit on 23-9-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by scott3x
I wouldn't go that far :-p. I think he does have some logic; flawed, but it's there. As to taunts, not sure. Certainly, he engages in relatively mild insults, but then it's not like our side doesn't. I think he knows what he's arguing about, but I also think that he shies away from defending the official story in favour of attacking ours. Now, if he were to examine his own position more carefully..

[edit on 23-9-2009 by scott3x]

Sorry but I have to disagree completely here. How many of his posts are repeats of themselves? For months I watched him post nothing but "the official story canard" over and over and over. I watch him insist people prove a negative and become completely dumbstruck as to why that does not work. He gets a hook and repeats it until he is called on it enough times and then moves on to the next point on his list. He has told just me that he has offered proof over and over and over again and he has not. Part of that time, he still had not even produced the link he has finally decided to believe in. If he had logic and understood what he was arguing about, he would understand that you cannot prove a negative. He also insists the burden of proof is on anyone that claims 9/11 did not go down that way when it is clear that 9/11 was not the status quo and all that happened that day is one big claim where the burden of proof still lies. None of these things make sense to any thinking person so he is either completely void of logic or just simply a disinfo freelancer.

reply to post by Lillydale

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by scott3x
I wouldn't go that far :-p. I think he does have some logic; flawed, but it's there. As to taunts, not sure. Certainly, he engages in relatively mild insults, but then it's not like our side doesn't. I think he knows what he's arguing about, but I also think that he shies away from defending the official story in favour of attacking ours. Now, if he were to examine his own position more carefully..

Sorry but I have to disagree completely here. How many of his posts are repeats of themselves? For months I watched him post nothing but "the official story canard" over and over and over. I watch him insist people prove a negative and become completely dumbstruck as to why that does not work. He gets a hook and repeats it until he is called on it enough times and then moves on to the next point on his list. He has told just me that he has offered proof over and over and over again and he has not. Part of that time, he still had not even produced the link he has finally decided to believe in. If he had logic and understood what he was arguing about, he would understand that you cannot prove a negative.

I agree with a lot of what you have to say above, but is he truly trying to prove a negative? Or is it more that he's clinging to the fact that we haven't proven the official story is wrong?

Originally posted by Lillydale
He also insists the burden of proof is on anyone that claims 9/11 did not go down that way

Yep...

Originally posted by Lillydale
when it is clear that 9/11 was not the status quo and all that happened that day is one big claim where the burden of proof still lies.

He believes it was the status quo. He also believes it's up to us to prove otherwise. I personally don't adhere to either of those beliefs, but we're talking about him here...

Originally posted by Lillydale
None of these things make sense to any thinking person so he is either completely void of logic or just simply a disinfo freelancer.

It would seem that here we do indeed disagree. It seems clear to me that he thinks. Honestly, you wouldn't even be able to read, let alone write, without the ability to think. And I do believe he has -some- logic. I believe his logic is flawed and it can be irritating to see the same flawed logic trumpeted out again and again. But his insults are mild, which I am thankful for. I've suffered much, much worse. Also, the thing about flawed logic is that it can be revealed, given enough time...

[edit on 23-9-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

IF you wished to line up and "hit" a building in the simulation, then every time you did it, over and over again, I expect you'd get bored very quickly. Because it is so friggin' easy.

That's no joke. After we ditched in the Hudson river, we took off again, buzzed the Empire State building a few times, flew low level through Manhattan, under several bridges, and finally got bored and flew to Pittsburgh.

(Video is just the Hudson ditching)


If you look at my media page you can even see me flying a Boeing 707. Just look for the guy with 2 stripes in the pilot's seat. It really wasn't that hard to head towards a known direction. A skyscraper would have been a piece of cake.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by dbates]

Originally posted by scott3x
I agree with a lot of what you have to say above, but is he truly trying to prove a negative? Or is it more that he's clinging to the fact that we haven't proven the official story is wrong?

At this point I have to ask you to go back and read his posts, perhaps back before you joined the threads he is on. Yes, he insists that I prove a negative. He expects me to prove that no passenger bodies were found. There is nothing else to call that.

He believes it was the status quo. He also believes it's up to us to prove otherwise. I personally don't adhere to either of those beliefs, but we're talking about him here...

You believe that he is logical? You honestly believe it is logical to believe that the status quo is hijacked planes full of passengers crashing into the Pentagon. How does logic even allow that to happen? Do they have to crash one after another in rapid succession or does the building need to be repaired so it can be damaged all over again too?

See why I fail to see any logic in there yet?

It would seem that here we do indeed disagree. It seems clear to me that he thinks. Honestly, you wouldn't even be able to read, let alone write, without the ability to think.

OK, his not unconscious or in a coma, you got me there.

And I do believe he has -some- logic. I believe his logic is flawed and it can be irritating to see the same flawed logic trumpeted out again and again.

I guess the problem is that what you see as flawed logic, I see as an absence of logic. Logic is an English word that by nature either is, or is not. There are no levels of logic, good and bad logic, flawed and flawless logic. There is logic which tells us 2 + 2 = 4 and there is not. 2 + 2 = 83423 is not flawed logic, it is the absence of logic. See where I am coming from?

But his insults are mild, which I am thankful for. I've suffered much, much worse. Also, the thing about flawed logic is that it can be revealed, given enough time...

[edit on 23-9-2009 by scott3x]

You really need to go back and read. I am certainly not trying to be rude but if you still need time, you have not witnessed him enough. Yes his insults are mild but I could care less. Some stranger behind a keyboard can insult me all they like. I have no need to fear or be hurt by it. It is this constant avoidance of answering questions that he calls other people out for not answering. It is this constant attitude he gives to anyone seeking the truth starting from a point of doubting the OS. He does not care about the truth. Bounce around. People are asking him for the truth and instead he is telling them to prove to him how I know something to be true. Does that sound like a logical truth seeker to you? When someone asks him for the truth and he uses it (repeatedly) to toss one of those mild insults my way, does it really seem like he cares, is interested, or is even paying attention?

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Lillydale]

reply to post by dbates


Interesting, dbates, and thanks.

Just in the first few seconds....that is NOT an A320 (as in the USAir ditching in the Hudson -- looks like a 'generic' simulator).

AND...we know that there is a "DITCH" switch on the Airbus...but, it wasn't pushed by the crew of USAir 1549....since they didn't have time to finish the checklist...AND I beleive the switch is actually located on the Overhead panel, not on the center pedestal.

(really, the function of the "DITCH" switch is simply to close any valves in the fuselage that would normally be open, in flight. The largest would be the outflow valve...part of the pressurization system).

Also...it's "Brace for Impact"....that is the correct phrase.....
Also....I heard one voice mention flaps at "40"...obviously, the gear was still up. UNLESS the instructor (Sim operator) pulled a few circuit breakers, there is normally a warning of some kind when flaps are selected beyond a certain setting, and gear is still up. (Or, more correctly, gear is not down and locked).


Depends on airplane. The B757/767, for instance...it's Flaps 20. Try setting 25 or thirty, and you get a warning. On the B737, it is different. EVERY airpalne is different.

ALSO....the GPWS is wrong...well, it might be 'normal' for that simulator, but for most airliners it is WRONG!

The GPWS (ground proximity warning system) has a multitude of functions, and audible warnings.

Depends....

IF you have just taken off, and the system detects an abnormal descent...it is "Sink Rate, Sink Rate"

Once the system 'knows' you are in flight, it has other modes. It looks at the Radar Altitude, compares the configuration (gear and flaps) and annunciates as appropriate, IF the config is incorrect.

Example: Gear not down and locked? "Too low, Gear! Too low, Gear!"

IF the flaps are also not in the proper landing settings..."Too low, Flaps! Too low, Flaps!"

An excessive rate of descent, close to the ground...even IF in the proper landing config?

"Sink rate, Sink rate" Imminent impact with terrain, after the "sink rate" warning...if no corrective action....built into the programming? "(sound)Whoop Whoop! (voice)Pull Up! (sound) Whoop Whoop (voice)Pull Up!"

There are many, many more programmed alerts in the GPWS. Most of them you never hear, in normal operations. IN CHECKLISTS of non-normal procedures...somewhere there is a "Ground Prox Inhibit" step...a switch that, as is obvious, will inhibit the GPWS verbal warnings, to preclude distractions.

Like I said....that simulator of the Hudson ditching....

DEFINATELY not an airbus A320, obvious because of the control wheel...AND the instrument panel. AND the GPWS is very generic, NOT airline...more like some bizjet?

Finally....modern GPWS has incorporated, when installed, GPS data too...it is called 'predictive' GPWS. Many bizjets had it well before the airlines did.

SO...the word "Terrain, Terrain" is now in its repertoire.....








____________________________________________________________
( I still like the idea of an ATS trip to the UK....maybe next year??? )



[edit on 23 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 23 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

I think this really sums up all you need to know about the people in this thread that are trying to steer attention away from the actual subject of the thread.

Originally posted by jthomas
I am an intellectually honest skeptic who exposes 9/11 Deniers like you.

Intellectually honest skeptic.

Demanding proof of a negative is not "intellectually honest" by any stretch of the imagination. Cheerleading for the OS over and over whilst never finding any good reason to believe it yourself is clearly not being "skeptic."

Here is the deal.
No disrespect for any member here that vies for a REINVESTIGATION.

Three huge buildings, many small and partial parts of buildings, BODY parts, desk top photos of LOVED ones.
Loved ones in aircraft and on the ground, that have Evaporated from the HUMAN experience.
Loved and CARED about AMERICANS. Not to mention the carnage of thousands of AMERICAN service people. And millions of INTERNATIONALS. WHITE, BLACK, MUSLIM, HISPANIC, ASIAN, GAY, ISRALE, RUSSIAN and many. many more.
This number is growing daily. NO CROSS EXAMINATION of any evidence AT ALL.

back to the DEAL.
This post will separate the apparent truth of 911, WTC/PENTAGON from the followers of the OFFICIAL US GOVERNMENT INVESTIVAGATIVE BULL CRAP STORY.
WHY???? You may ask???
Simple answer!!!
They will not answer this post!!!
So remember this as you deal with these deadbeat ANTI-AMERICANS!!!

reply to post by JPhish

lol you're never going to give me a strait answer are you ?

i really just want to know how many times out of one hundred you think you could hit the pentagon in.

100 out of 100 times.

As I've already mentioned, I would be bored to death after the first time.

reply to post by weedwhacker


All this posturing about how you can fly a simulator without the burden of real atmospheric interaction is really interesting and all but I find it more interesting that you are in this thread, doing this much talking about something any of us can say without offering any proof either but does not matter because it is not a true analog, and you have not even tried to explain what hit the pentagon on 9/11/01.

reply to post by Lillydale

...and you have not even tried to explain what hit the pentagon on 9/11/01.

I would have thought that the majority of what I've written, in my attempt to provide my bona fides (to those who will know...others, the 'laypeople', won't be convinced, because they won't understand...) has shown that it is obvious to anyone with some cerebral matter that a Boeing 757, operated as flight 77 by American Airlines on 11 September, 2001, was hijacked and used as a 'weapon' in a concerted and co-ordinated attack.

FOUR airplanes were hijacked, each with a specific primary target.

This was unprecedented in aviation -- the prevailing notion, the "profile" of the average hijacker, was devoted to the 'refugee', the 'extortionist', or a combination of both...whether the motive was extortion of money, or for a political purpose, the implication was ALWAYS that the hijacker did not want to die. THAT was the 'strategy'....known as the "Common Strategy" that was taught (there were other aspects to it...some that still are relevant, so should not be discussed openly)....until 9/11.

Hindsight is 20/20. "Blindness", due to arrogance and cultural differences...the concept of 'suicide' as a terroist tactic is foreign to most Westerners.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by Orion7911

I've put that character on IGNORE long ago... you and anyone that wants to have intelligent discourse here should as well.

This speaks more about YOUR character than anything else...oh, wait! You'll never see this.

Well, the rest of us can just laugh at your ignorance, then. DENIED!

reply to post by Lillydale

All this posturing about how you can fly a simulator without the burden of real atmospheric interaction is really interesting...

What the H E double hockey sticks does that sentence mean???

"real atmosphere interaction"???

I'm sorry....having trouble, now, taking anything you say seriously.

Seriously.

(I realize that not many of you out there are pilots, but come on!!!! You aren't children!)

reply to post by weedwhacker


Air pressure, barometric pressure, the difference between cruising altitude and flying under a real bridge 20 feet above real ground, blah blah, things that change the variables of lift and stability and speed and the engines abilities, and on and on.....

reply to post by Lillydale


That's the problem. YOU don't understand that a simulator takes all of that into account. It is as REALISTIC as possible, and includes the various air densities found with different temperatures and altitudes.

I mean, IF the simulator didn't accurately re-create the reality of flight, then what good would it be???

Did you miss the part where I pointed out modern simulators are so good the FAA consider them to be an adequate SUBSTITUTE for actual hands-on experience in the real airplane?

I'll try again.....

It is a REQUIREMENT, under FAA regulations (FARs) that a pilot, to be 'current', must have at least three landings within 90 days.

A modern simulator that is considered "landing certified" meets the requirement, per the FAA.

A simulator will NOT do anything the real airplane cannot do.

(well....except, if you "crash" the sim, it doesn't always break. OH, and the sim, being a computer, can be 'frozen' in place, and slewed to new positions, etc....but in the realm of behaving like an airplane, it does NOT do anything extraordinary).

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

That's the problem. YOU don't understand that a simu-

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Pay attention real close now.

It is as REALISTIC as possible

That is right. It is as realistic as possible. Does it actually have all of the real life variables? No. Does it really behave as that plane would have? A simulator is exactly that - similar. It is not the same.

edit to add:how many times did you fly the sim with a plane full of hostages while praying to your god after just having murdered someone to take control? Just curious how many variables we can just toss out when they get in the way.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Lillydale]

reply to post by Lillydale

edit to add:how many times did you fly the sim with a plane full of hostages while praying to your god after just having murdered someone to take control? Just curious how many variables we can just toss out when they get in the way.

Well....THAT and a bag of manure can help in your garden.

Huh????

I am completely flummoxed by that, there is no other appropriate response, except....Huh????

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

edit to add:how many times did you fly the sim with a plane full of hostages while praying to your god after just having murdered someone to take control? Just curious how many variables we can just toss out when they get in the way.

Well....THAT and a bag of manure can help in your garden.

Huh????

I am completely flummoxed by that, there is no other appropriate response, except....Huh????

The point is valid. You can't simulate the stress that these hijackers would have been under. There were so many things to think about. They never practiced for such a thing and your flight sim doesn't cover such a circumstance.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well....THAT and a bag of manure can help in your garden.

Huh????

I am completely flummoxed by that, there is no other appropriate response, except....Huh????

I am terribly sorry that you are having such a hard time understanding me. Perhaps you should join Jthomas and find an "English as a second language" classes somewhere. I believe I type in clear sentences that seem to be understood fine by almost everyone but 4 or 5 9/11 OS supporters. Funny how that works out isn't it.

Just so that you do not have to cry about it. Fine, you are right. Anything and everything you can do in that flight simulator is exactly the same as it would be in a real cockpit of a real plane flying in the real atmosphere.

Just tell me something, since you claim this sim can so perfectly replicate the atmospheric conditions - what did you use as your data for the conditions that day?