Holes shaped like planes?

Discussion in '9/11' started by Vlad Ivx, Dec 29, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    PROVE that airliner controls are perfectly consistent at ALL speeds/altitudes
    &
    PROVE that a Boeing 757/767 aircraft will respond to control in the same way within its normal operating parameters and at >150 mph over-speed.
     
  2. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    87,796
    Likes Received:
    20,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, that has already been done. It is up to you to 'prove' that they aren't.
     
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Restating the "facts" changes nothing. You have again stated that we are in uncharted territory therefore any use of this claim cannot be applied by either side to help prove or disprove a conspiracy because WE DON'T KNOW.

    Right genericBob?
     
  4. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Note the Myth Busters episode where the guys try the stunt of
    putting a car up on two wheels and driving around, its a precision
    stunt that even with a whole day to practice, the result was that
    Adam ended up turning the car over completely. in the case of
    the hijacked airliner scenario, the hijackers would have a matter of minutes to
    feel-out the controls and understand exactly how much movement
    of the yoke produces how much movement of the aircraft, the likely-hood
    of the hijackers being able to accomplish this without having the aircraft
    break apart or crash into the river near the towers, is rather slim.....
     
  5. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are ignoring the fact that they had all had extensive pilot training before that date. They didn't grab the planes 'cold'. They knew exactly what they planned to do and had trained for it.
     
  6. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Trained for it ....... by what, flying puddle jumpers & getting time in simulators?
    fact is nobody gets the feel of an airliner by flying a simulator, the ONLY way to get that experience is to actually fly the aircraft. Even the commercial airlines do NOT simply put a pilot in charge of an airliner they are not familiar with, any new pilot gets supervised time in the aircraft to learn the feel of the controls. The hijackers would have had NO opportunity to get experience at the feel of the airliner except for the morning of 9/11/2001.

    I stand by my earlier statement that flying >150 mph over max speed, is totally uncharted territory and therefore its a toss-up if anybody could do it .... or crash the aircraft into the river(?)
     
  7. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    87,796
    Likes Received:
    20,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Flying is easy, it is the take offs and landings that are difficult. They had no intention of trying to land them.
     
  8. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Landing is an exercise in placing the aircraft in a specific spot in order to land it. the attack on the twin towers required placing the aircraft in a very specific spot that would be complicated ( at least in the case of "FLT175") by the power dive aspect of the descent, no matter how shallow it may be claimed to have been, the power-dive to gain speed for the strike is totally problematic in that the person flying the aircraft would have to be VERY familiar with the characteristics of the aircraft. To do the power-dive bit, the pilot would have to point the nose of the aircraft down ( how much down to achieve the desired result ) and have it figured out in advance when it will be necessary to pull up in order to hit the target. This simplistic business about how it would only be necessary to point the nose of the aircraft at the target and advance the throttles as far as they will go....
    well its a fairy tale!
     
  9. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    87,796
    Likes Received:
    20,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course if they were both that exact, they would have hit at the same level. Didn't, but they did hit both towers.
     
  10. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The vertical displacement was different for both,
    but the horizontal displacement was very much consistent
    in that the wingspan of the airliner had only 25ft on each side
    to have as margin for error. This is a very tight window to hit,
    and the hijackers said they didn't need to learn to land the aircraft,
    they only needed to learn to fly. but they needed the skills to land
    in order to hit the target as they did and indeed to get that accuracy
    first time & only time that they could do this stunt.
     
  11. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    87,796
    Likes Received:
    20,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong again. Landing has nothing to do with flying normally, which they were doing. Anyone could hit the runway flying like they did, they just would not walk away from the landing.
     
  12. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So inexperienced "pilots" hijackers who apparently only had real experience flying puddle jumpers, flew twin engine airliners in a manner such as to hit a target that was only 50 ft wider than the wingspan of the aircraft and place the aircraft in very nearly a Bulls-eye position and do so 2X and nobody thinks that is the slightest bit implausible or improbable?

    This is yet another one of the totally improbable & implausible events of 9/11.
    The events of 9/11/2001 are just as if somebody could take dice and roll snake-eyes 1,000,000 times in a row.
     
  13. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    87,796
    Likes Received:
    20,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Improbable and implausible for the uneducated.
     
  14. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is exactly like the con that was played in the
    Emperor's new clothes .....
    you are unworthy of the station you hold, and you can not see the magical new suit that the emperor is wearing.
     
  15. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    87,796
    Likes Received:
    20,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In other words, you have nothing. Got it.
     
  16. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What does the faction pushing the suicidal Arab hijackers story have to offer?
    physical proof that there ever were airliners at any of the crash sites?
    an explanation of why WTC7 "collapsed" in the manner that it did?

    what is there?
     
  17. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    87,796
    Likes Received:
    20,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean like the aircraft parts, ATC, the calls from the airliners? You do ignore all of those don't you?
     
  18. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lets just address the aircraft parts bit, in what way is it documented
    that any bits found at any of the alleged airliner crash sites was actually
    a part of the aircraft in question and not just some random bit of scrap
    trucked in to be set dressing? I'm serious, what was checked, and by
    what means and how was it recorded that any sort of checking happened.
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In the reports that have been linked for you, you'll find that the NTSB, the FBI, the airlines, the insurance companies for the airlines, etc checked the validity.

    Go. Read.
     
  20. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    87,796
    Likes Received:
    20,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's got to be the most ignorant thing you have said yet.
     
  21. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're entire position is moot, 100% moot...because we on the ground saw it happen, people on the ground recorded it and the news cameras recorded it.

    It happened so, once again...you're left holding a bag of nothing.
     
  22. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just in the case of the alleged "FLT77" witnesses on the ground gave conflicting testimony in that initial reports had the "airliner" being a small commuter jet, of 20 passengers size at the most, some people said it was a military aircraft, etc. the EVIDENCE is valuable in the matter of nailing down exactly what did hit the PENTAGON and most certainly by the performance indicated by ALL other crashes
    ( with the exception of "FLT11" & "FLT175" ) the crash scene should have included many tons of aircraft wreckage in the Pentagon lawn.
     
  23. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Provide your sources for this 'precedent'.
     
  24. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why do you continue to focus on the miniscule abount of witnesses who say those things?
     
  25. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The fact that any testimony at all exists that contradicts the official party line,
    is indeed troubling. In any case where there is conflicting stories, the physical
    evidence is the deciding vote, the tie-breaker, the final arbiter of what is real.
    The fact that there is so little physical evidence and also that the physical evidence was handled so poorly.... can anyone say for certain exactly how much sheet metal, & misc parts where recovered from any of the crash sites? If this were a civil case, there would be great howls of protest about the miss-handling of critical data.
    But it was the Government that was supposed to be in charge of evidence collection & preservation and the public servants that did the job, did it VERY poorly. Why no accountability? in all of the goings on from 9/11/2001 forward, WHO ( if anyone ) has been held accountable for anything?

    The worlds greatest military power
    Failed to defend even its own HQ ..... and on 9/12 Donald Rumsfeld still had a job

    Whats up with that?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page