Your 9/11 truth?

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Sorry, I pressed the wrong button

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I havent shown them you're work as of yet, but would you like me to? (honest question)

Show anybody whatever you want.

If you are right about what you say, why does practially everyone who respondes to your postings do so in such a negative way?

You are switching to psychology. Are the people who respond to me always the same ones? Hooper trying to play ridicule games. GoodOlDave talking about conspiracies which is just another ridicule strategy. I am not trying to figure out or explain what is going on in other people's heads. I could not care less.

Why can't you find the weight of the trusses and pans? I have never seen it anywhere. So how is anybody supposed to do good science without correct data?

there seems to be more support for CGI planes (total rubbish by the way) on this site than for what you are saying(even when what you said about the concrete and steel to be missing is totally true) are they all wrong?

The CGI planes business is more stupid psychological bullsh# that I do not discuss. If the planes were CGI then the holes in the buildings and the collapses still have to be explained so I regard the CGI business as idiotic.

But skyscrapers have to hold themselves up and the Empire State Building is 80 years old. So this is not rocket science since it was older than the WTC when we went to the Moon. I cannot find the distributions of steel and concrete on any skyscrapers anywhere in the world and there are 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall.

So why haven't SCIENTISTS been asking such obvious questions?

What if lots of scientists figured out that airliners could not do that to skyscrapers that HUGE within weeks of 9/11? Then obviously some people with a lot of resources and a lot of power did not care how many people they killed. So isn't it obvious that a lot of scientists are simply not discussing the subject at all and practically pretending that it does not exist?

So lots of idiots are saying all sorts of bullsh# about it. But skyscrapers still have to hold up their own weight and it does not take a degree in physics to figure that out. So how can the distribution of that weight and the strength needed to hold it not be relevant to this simple physics problem?

psik

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Apocalypse1

 

A guy who couldn't fly a Cessna managed to land a 757 into the ground floor of the side of the Pentagon

Except that Hani Hanjour the pilot of AA 77 took lessons at Jet Tech in Mesa Arizona in a Boeing 737
simulator. His instructor signed off "TIGHT TURNS" in his log book, no thing was listed for taxiing or
landing.....

Yet for all intents and purposes he did basically manage to land a Boeing 757 into the ground floor of the Pentagon.

No way will I ever believe that a guy who couldn't pilot a Cessna could land a 757 despite what that D. Bull guy claims. That D. Bull guy couldn't be more obvious if he added %#it to the end of his name.

reply to post by Apocalypse1

No way will I ever believe that a guy who couldn't pilot a Cessna could land a 757 despite what that D. Bull guy claims. That D. Bull guy couldn't be more obvious if he added %#it to the end of his name.

So WHO said he could not pilot a Cessna?

Hanjour had a pilot licence with commercial rating

Hanjour gained his FAA commercial pilot certificate in April 1999, getting a "satisfactory" rating from the examiner. Hanjour's bank records indicate that he travelled to Ontario, Canada in March 1999 for an unknown reason

Hanjour's problem was not so much with flying it was his poor command of English - air traffic control worldwide
is done in English .

ELS Language Center on Oakland said Hanjour reached a level of proficiency sufficient to “survive very well in the English language”. However, in January 2001, Arizona JetTech flight school managers reported him to the FAA at least five times because his English was inadequate for the commercial pilot’s certificate he had already obtained. It took him five hours to complete an oral exam meant to last just two hours, said Peggy Chevrette. Hanjour failed UA English classes with a 0.26 GPA and a JetTech manager said “He could not fly at all.” His FAA certificate had become invalid late in 1999 when he failed to take a mandatory medical examination. In February, Hanjour began advanced simulator training in Mesa, Arizona.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Apocalypse1

 

So WHO said he could not pilot a Cessna?

Hanjour had a pilot licence with commercial rating

I'm sure you've read about how just three weeks before 9/11 he was refused the rental of a Cessna after being takin' on a test flight or three. The guy couldn't fly or land the thing so...and I'm sure you've read about the less than glowing revues which some of his instructors gave. And I'm sure you've read what Eddie or Eddy Shuvel told the 9/11 Commission, which fly's in the face of what others have said. Ain't it funny how the 9/11 Commission (or Omission) chose to take testimony from Eddy but not from others who would have contradicted what Eddy claimed.

Hanjour gained his FAA commercial pilot certificate in April 1999, getting a "satisfactory" rating from the examiner. Hanjour's bank records indicate that he travelled to Ontario, Canada in March 1999 for an unknown reason

Hanjour's problem was not so much with flying it was his poor command of English - air traffic control worldwide
is done in English .

ELS Language Center on Oakland said Hanjour reached a level of proficiency sufficient to “survive very well in the English language”. However, in January 2001, Arizona JetTech flight school managers reported him to the FAA at least five times because his English was inadequate for the commercial pilot’s certificate he had already obtained. It took him five hours to complete an oral exam meant to last just two hours, said Peggy Chevrette. Hanjour failed UA English classes with a 0.26 GPA and a JetTech manager said “He could not fly at all.” His FAA certificate had become invalid late in 1999 when he failed to take a mandatory medical examination. In February, Hanjour began advanced simulator training in Mesa, Arizona.

Almost sounds like there were two Hani Hanjours out there doesn't it?

reply to post by Apocalypse1


Hanjour was not the "perfect" pilot, but was good enough for what was his role - to hit the Pentagon

He may not have been much on takeoff/landings, in course at Jet Tech simulator instructor did not sign
off for taxiing or landing. Did note that he passed the part "STEEP TURNS"

He did not have to take in Boeing 757, he did not need to land the aircraft. All he had to do was steer the
aircraft into the Pentagon

Reminds me of WW II Japanese kamikaze pilots - they had enough training to takeoff and crash their
aircraft in ships, training them in landing was unnecessary as were on one way trip

Hanjpur had enough skill to do what was needed and did it....

reply to post by Apocalypse1

No way will I ever believe that a guy who couldn't pilot a Cessna....

It wasn't that he "couldn't pilot a Cessna"....it was simply that his performance was sub-standard, and the people that operated the facility where he tried to rent were not willing to trust their airplane to him, because they were not convinced that he was safe.

Imagine if, when you wanted to rent a car from Avis for the first time, being "new" to the place, that you had to take a drive test first. This is how it is in aviation. When you want to rent, if you are an unknown to them, then you have to take a flight test and get 'signed off'. This is true even IF you are a repeat customer, but you want to rent a different airplane type.

Back to the car rental analogy....say you are at Avis, and taking the driving test, and the inspector doesn't like the way you drive....say you use both feet, one on the accelerator, one on the brake (pet peeve of mine), for example. And, you ride the brakes. And, you exhibit unsafe behavior when driving. Etc, Etc.

This is a simplified version of what occurred with Hanjour....although there are a lot, lot more technical issues with flying, performance and safety skills than driving a car........

Originally posted by Apocalypse1

 

Yet for all intents and purposes he did basically manage to land a Boeing 757 into the ground floor of the Pentagon.

No way will I ever believe that a guy who couldn't pilot a Cessna could land a 757 despite what that D. Bull guy claims. That D. Bull guy couldn't be more obvious if he added %#it to the end of his name.

Now, just how many times does this bunk need to be refuted before it's finally put to bed? There's a lot more to flying a plane than simply flying a plane. There's knowing how to take off from a runway, there's knowing how to land, there's knowing how to navigate by using instruments, there's knowing how to communicate with the control towers, there's knowing how to file a flight plan. Why does it need to be pointed out why Hani Hanjour wouldn't care to learn any of that?

The plan was to sieze the plane after it already got into the air so they didn't need to know how to take off, and it was a suicide mission so they didn't need to know how to land. All they needed to know was how to use the automatic pilot and how to steer ther plane.

The fact remains that regardless of what those damned fool conspiracy web sites are telling you, Hani Hanjour did in fact master these duties sufficiently enough to earn a commercial pilot's license, which makes this whole "no plane hit the Pentagon" nonsense entirely moot.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

 

Why can't you find the weight of the trusses and pans? I have never seen it anywhere. So how is anybody supposed to do good science without correct data?

Why can't you answer the simple question of what your background in physics is? So how is anybody supposed to think you're credible when nobody knows whether you have a physics doctorate or whether you're just reading something off the back of a box of cereal?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

The plan was to sieze the plane after it already got into the air so they didn't need to know how to take off, and it was a suicide mission so they didn't need to know how to land. All they needed to know was how to use the automatic pilot and how to steer ther plane.

I have always thought this was in interesting choice of phrases by those up holding the O S.

If I were planing to highjack a plane and steer it to some distination, why would I have any interest in the auto pilot. It's function is to keep it on a set course, isn't it.

It seems this would hinder my plans of steering the plain in the directions I needed toward my target.

Of course, I remember reading that the auto pilot on a 747, once set, could fly and safely land the plane using the radio beacons from an airport. And yes, I know this was not a 747. This was plane under discussion at the time. Several years before 2001.

Could the same be said about the 737 or the 757. I have no idea, and so I just can't say.

It just seems an odd choice of phrases.

Originally posted by hdutton

 

I have always thought this was in interesting choice of phrases by those up holding the O S.

If I were planing to highjack a plane and steer it to some distination, why would I have any interest in the auto pilot. It's function is to keep it on a set course, isn't it.

It seems this would hinder my plans of steering the plain in the directions I needed toward my target.

Actually, the autopilot does whatever the pilot asks it to do. The flight recorder from flight 77 was recovered and it revealed the hijackers had dialed in the destination of Reagan Airport (inside Washington D.C.), and they essentially allowed the autopilot to fly the plane to the D.C. area for them. After that, all the would need to do is turn it off and steer the plane into whatever their target was.

Since this was a coordinated attack, we need to presume the other hijackers did the same thing (I.E. dial in JFK and let the autopilot do all the navigation work to get back to NYC).

Moving the control yoke disengages the auto pilot.

Let the auto pilot do most of the work. Then when you see the building you want it's simple matter to crash it.

It's a brilliantly simple plan overall.

reply to post by samkent

Moving the control yoke disengages the auto pilot.

Yes, but not it's more complicated. Depends on how much you move it, the A/P may just drop out of the "higher" programmed functions into what's called "control wheel steering" mode. It just holds a bank angle/pitch attitude, as directed by control wheel inputs.

There is an A/P disconnect button on each control wheel (or "yoke"). Click once, A/P disconnects --- click again to silence the Master Warning aural alarm, and red lights. Two fast clicks (double-click, just like using your computer mouse), and you never hear or see the Master Warning. (**) see below---

(**) edit to add -- I need to point out because some are very picky, the ability to disconnect the A/P without any aural or visual warning that I described is true for the Boeing 757/767. But, not always the case for every airliner version. For example, the B-737 has an annoying (to me, anyway) three-note electronic warble sound, even on the double-click (d-clicking prevents the Master Caution.....that is what the B-737 has, not a Master Warning. "Warning" have red lights, "Cautions" amber. But even though the lights don't trigger, you still get the 3 warbles. If you don't click twice, then it continues until cancelled. There are other ways to cancel, as well, besides just the buttons on the control wheels). Airbuses have an electronic "chirp", which also will sound regardless whether a double-click or not......etc.

Hey, what do you know?? There is a YouTube video to illustrate....can find just about everything there nowadays!!:



(We call the female voice in the MD-80 "Bitchin' Betty")....no misogyny intended. Double clicking cancels her too...)....


The FDR info from AAL 77 and UAL 93 show full A/P disconnects. The UAL 93 FDR shows the A/P as still "engaged" for part of the last minutes when the hijackers were trying to throw off the passengers who were attempting to break in, by throwing them around with the rolling and pitching maneuvers....so, the A/P remained in CWS mode for a while, during that...until finally disengaging...it will with extreme movements, disengage fully at some point. Or, it was clicked off with the disconnect button. No way to know which, in that case.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I posted this on a thread in answer to a reply I got there hoping they , or someone, would explain why the plan was so complicated.

'If ,as you say, they used dummy planes for the attack on the towers then what happend the passengers and air crew of the hijacked aircraft? who made the phone calls from the planes? what happend the original aircraft if they were replaced? where were the planes controlled from? where was the location of the airfield where the dummy planes were stored and then flown from? the list goes on and on... the more you look at each of the proposed events closely the more complicated it becomes, the number of people involved increases and more questions are raised. I'm not saying that you are wrong in what you belive,and I thank you for you're cordial reply on this matter, but an over complicated plan like this just seems to have to many phases were it could have failed.... for example what would they have done if one of the dummy aircraft could not take off due to technical problems?'

2 days later and still nothing....any takers here up for a polite discussion on the subject?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

 

Why can't you find the weight of the trusses and pans? I have never seen it anywhere. So how is anybody supposed to do good science without correct data?

Why can't you answer the simple question of what your background in physics is? So how is anybody supposed to think you're credible when nobody knows whether you have a physics doctorate or whether you're just reading something off the back of a box of cereal?

What is wrong? You can't find the information after TEN YEARS either?

I don't want people to regard me as creditable. That is psychological bullsh#.

I want people to understand grade school physics for themselves. Is a DEGREE required to comprehend that every level of every skyscraper must be strong enough to support all of the weight above under STATIC conditions?

Don't the nitwits at JREF constantly talk about STATIC, DYNAMIC. STATIC, DYNAMIC. STATIC, DYNAMIC?

I provided a physical model that can support its own STATIC weight. My paper loops at the bottom must support 33 washers. The next one up must support 32 washers. So my paper loops can get weaker going up as the number of washers decreases. But my structure is AS WEAK AS I CAN MAKE IT. So anyone that wants to can duplicate it or try and make it weaker and see if the DYNAMIC LOAD created by dropping the top 4 washers and see if a structure designed for its own STATIC load can't arrest the falling top 15% or less.

Is that too difficult for our engineering schools?

So why can't all of the PHYSICISTS and STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS with DEGREES build a physical model that can completely collapse?

psik

reply to post by GoodOlDave



[

Actually, the autopilot does whatever the pilot asks it to do. The flight recorder from flight 77 was recovered and it revealed the hijackers had dialed in the destination of Reagan Airport (inside Washington D.C.), and they essentially allowed the autopilot to fly the plane to the D.C. area for them. After that, all the would need to do is turn it off and steer the plane into whatever their target was.

As you seem more informed than many others who reply on such posts, I must ask this of you.

Where could I have gotten the commercial locator codes for Reagan Airport prior to 9/11.

Was, or is, there a central listing for such things or would they be kept privey to those who would need then ?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Apocalypse1

 

The fact remains that regardless of what those damned fool conspiracy web sites are telling you, Hani Hanjour did in fact master these duties sufficiently enough to earn a commercial pilot's license, which makes this whole "no plane hit the Pentagon" nonsense entirely moot.

You're confused as I never said "no plane hit the Pentagon."

Why do so many people here keep saying that Hani didn't have to land the plane when in fact that's just what he did? This guy allegedly swoops down from the sky and fly's over an elevated highway, taking out some light poles that were in the way and levels the boeing out over the Pentagon lawn and crashes the wings and engines into the ground floor of the building and the fuselage into the 2nd floor. The dude was said to be traveling at four to five hundred miles an hour and according to some witnesses was actually accelerating the engines while making the approach. Sounds to me like with the landing gear down and a runway, he could have landed that plane easily.

But this wasn't the same Hani that couldn't fly a Cessna nor was he the same Hani that Eddie Shuvel said was a "good" pilot.

This one was...
HANI HANJOUR: ACE PILOT.

And why doesn't anyone want to comment on the side of the Pentagon that was hit? I mean, seriously, were the hijackers that out of touch with their targets. They had five sides to choose from and they just happened to choose the side that had just been reinforced?

C'monnnn...

reply to post by Apocalypse1


Landing a plane at 500mph...???

Just what kind of delusional thinking is that ...?

Planes do not land at 500mph! Landing speed is less than 1/3 that at 150mph

As for for the side that was just reinforced - reason hit that side was simple

That was the direction he came in from....

Originally posted by Apocalypse1

And why doesn't anyone want to comment on the side of the Pentagon that was hit? I mean, seriously, were the hijackers that out of touch with their targets. They had five sides to choose from and they just happened to choose the side that had just been reinforced?

C'monnnn...

Yet more nonsense those damned fool conspiracy web sites are shovelling out. The Pentagon was a huge place so there'd naturally be something unique about each of the five sections, and those snake oil peddlers like Alex Jones and Dylan Avery would have simply used whatever they needed to to push out their paranoia mongoring games-

-Isn't it suspicious they hit the NORTH side, where all the computer systems storing vital information were located. Perhaps it was to eliminate evidence of the eleventeen gazillion dollars missing from the budget that paid for the false flag?

-Isn't it suspicious they hit the EAST side, where major someone or another who just happened to be the nation's foremost expert on Al Qaida was sitting? Perhaps it was an assassination attempt to cover up the false flag?

-Isn;t it suspicious they hit the WEST side, where the secluded and heavily guarded entrance to the building was? Perhaps they wanted to make sure all the witnesses would say it was a plane rather than a missile to cover up the false flag?

-Isn't is suspicious they hit the SOUTH side, where there were renovating the area and the place was understaffed? Perhaps they were trying to keep casualties down in their false flag?

In short, those phonies take PENTAGON STRIKE and FALSE FLAG and they then manufacture whatever links they have to between the two to get you to believe some sinister secret boogeyman is coming to get you. This isn't research. It's loading the dice in their favor because this whole conspiracy mongoring bit is just one gigantic con job.