| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Hi Defector,
Thanks for the link. I had a look at the Dutch documentary, especially the part when they got an allegedly amateur 'single prop' pilot to fly a 757 simulator to see if it was possible to fly a 757 into the Pentagon the way the official story says it did.
I've actually talked to a KLM 757 pilot friend of mine, in fact he may have used that actual simulator, and, whilst not impossible, such a difficult downward spiral manouvre would be extremely difficult. My friend totally concurs with this article:
| Quote: | [size=18]The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training [/size]
by Nila Sagadevan
Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a pilot.
There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.
What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.
A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how “easy” it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the “open sky”. But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.
And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport by themselves are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.
For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.
In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot — and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft.
The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs—even landings, to a certain degree—are relatively “easy”, because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist “outside” the cockpit.
But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues, and is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)
In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard” instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules.
And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!
The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they ‘lost it’ while flying in IFR conditions.
Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.
Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.
In fact, here’s what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:
Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."
http://www.willthomas.net/911/911_Commission_Hearing.htm
Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."
http://100777.com/node/237
Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/9-11_hijackers _still_alive.htm
Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.”
http://www.willthomas.net/Books_Videos/911_Investigations_Stand_Down.h tm
Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html
Now let’s take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker Hani Hanjour presumably rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that this would present considerable difficulties to a little chap with a box cutter—Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor. But let’s ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.
Imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain’s seat. The weather reports say it was fairly clear, so let’s say Hanjour experienced a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet -- 7 miles -- below him, a murky brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually devoid of any significant surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).
In a real-world scenario, with this kind of “situational NON-awareness”, Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan—he wouldn’t have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.
After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there’s little point in looking outside—there’s nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.
Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his instrument panel, where he’d be faced with a bewildering array of instruments—nothing like he had seen in a Cessna 172. He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position.
After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.
It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn’t have known where to begin.
But, for the sake of discussion let’s stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour—whose flight instructor claimed “couldn’t fly at all”—somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by themselves before.
Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes—remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).
In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these fellows even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.
To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This still wouldn’t relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let’s assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the aircraft to its intended—and invisible—target on instruments alone until such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. (This portion of Flight 77’s flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio.)
According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his life depended on it).
The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.” (http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=4084)
And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him.
But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).
I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Indeed, the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown entire semi-trucks off the roads this massive aircraft is alleged to have flown over at extremely low altitude. The DVD, “Loose Change – 1st Edition” (http://www.loosechange911.com) contains an excellent clip of trucks being swept off the end of a runway when a jetliner powers up for take-off.
Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.
The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.
Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground. Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.
At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the Global Hawk.)
The very same challenges mentioned above would have faced the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their “final approach” maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft.
The author recently received a letter from a senior 757 captain currently flying with one of the airlines involved in 9/11. It contains the following statement:
“Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”
Conclusion
The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers “took control” of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they’d realize the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.
In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH — and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.
|
I've actually studied aircrashes as part of a three month Cranfield University Course for International Disaster Management which I completed in 1998. Numerous air disasters were evaluated and looked at in detail and in ALL cases there was a wreckage field consistent to the type of crash. If you crash into the side of a mountain at full speed, you would find engines, undercarriage parts, tail planes, parts of wings etc. etc. Likewise crashing into the ground or a forest or built up area. Some years back, close to Schiphol Airport in Holland, an Israeli Cargo 747 crashed into a large block of flats. Not being made out of reinforced concrete the plane sliced through the building like a hot knife through butter - and the debris field was entirely consistent with what you would expect with engines, undercarriage, wing parts etc. all visible within the rubble of the building. With the Pentagon, especially a newly refurbished and strengthened part of it, the debris field makes absolutely no sense at all. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANT DEBRIS ALL OVER THE LAWN IN FRONT - NO IFS - NO BUTS. JUST SIMPLE COMMONSENSE!!!!
And one final thing that proves that no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon, and I did mention this before, where the engines would have hit and the tall tail plane, there is no significant damage to the facade of the building - that simply would not be the case - coming in at 500mph the engines would have smashed the facade and even the tall tail plane would have taken out a portion of the concrete facade, not dissimilar to a karate chop by a hand on a piece of wood.
And we haven't even mentioned why the automatic Air Defence System that protects the Pentagon did not engage; or why that part of the Pentagon was hit (as David Ray Griffin said in the Conway Hall, why did they not simply crash straight down on the roof or hit the side where Rumsfeld and his cronies hang out). The list just goes on and on. Have courage my friends, the Pentagon is just like the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7, it is obvious that the official conspiracy theory is unsustainable.
_________________
Connect to Infinite Consciousness - enjoy the ride! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I've actually studied aircrashes as part of a three month Cranfield University Course ....blah, blah....LAWN IN FRONT - NO IFS - NO BUTS. JUST SIMPLE COMMONSENSE!!!!
And we haven't even mentioned why the automatic Air Defence System that protects the Pentagon did not engage; or why that part of the Pentagon was hit (as David Ray Griffin said in the Conway Hall, why did they not simply crash straight down on the roof or hit the side where Rumsfeld and his cronies hang out). The list just goes on and on. Have courage my friends, the Pentagon is just like the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7, it is obvious that the official conspiracy theory is unsustainable. |
I would like you to elaborate with your expert knowledge on air crashes please.
A point first;
I regularly see that the plane/whatever impacted a newly refurbished area of The Pentagon - well the odds are 7 to 1 = 5 vertical sides + the roof + plus it could simply have missed = 7 possibilities. These are odds that most gamblers take every day and not astronomical odds as oft quoted. So the list does not go 'on and on' = 7 to 1.
The Pentagon is a wholly unique structure and the area impacted by the 'flying object' was vertical and designed to withstand considerable impacts. Please can you supply an example where a similar aircraft has hit such a similar vertical structure (one designed to withstand such forces)? Please refrain from waffling, keep it concise and simple.
What was the purpose of your air crash study course?
Also, please supply a link to definitive proof that The Pentagon had/has an automatic defence system, what form it takes and its location?
I am not a skeptic, I am a devoted member of The Truth Movement, however your points need addressing.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi telecasterisation (where do people get these names from?!)
Thanks for your response. I shall take each of them in order:
1. Odds of 7 to 1. Apart from the lottery where the odds are truly vast, I don't gamble but the point I'm making is that if the terrorists wished to achieve maximum casualties (which any self-respecting terrorist would with their evil and distorted minds) then a simple suicide dive down from the heavens would achieve that. If, as we are led to believe, this was a well planned and executed terrorist act, they would have gone for the side where Rumsfeld and most of the Top Brass reside. Like the whole of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, nothing is simple and straightforward. Yes, it is possible that that Hani Hanjour achieved the second worse outcome by hitting the side that was being refurbished, but commonsense tells me that if, as we believe, the Neocons are behind this (with all the other hundreds of smoking guns we have), then it makes sense for them to hit a side of the building where the casualties would be minimal and the operational ability of the Pentagon would not be severely compromised.
2. The crash against the Pentagon is unique as regards other aircrashes. (yes, I have seen the footage of a controlled impact into concrete). All the impact zones we studied were fields, water, sides of mountains and normal urban built up areas. A crash against a reinforced concrete building is unique as far as I am aware. But simple physics tells you that an airliner coming into contact with a defensively designed steel reinforced concrete building, will result in the wings not simply folding back and sliding through the impact hole (as we are being asked to believe), but going forward on impact and snapping off. The wings, or an ouline of the wings if fire consumed that part of the wreckage, would have been on the lawn - certainly the engines would have been clearly visible either within the wreckage of the Pentagon's facade or even on the lawn itself.
3. Mine was not a crash study course - I was on a Disaster Management Course designed for senior civil servants and members of the military from developing countries so that in time of disaster, a more coordinated, effective and rapid response could be undertaken by the affected country itself with its meagre resources. I was the only Brit on the course as I was undertaking research into a new disaster response mechanism for the UN and the International Community whereby Urban Search and Rescue teams from developed countries could respond effectively within 24 hours to a major disaster such as an earthquake. On the course we had to specialise in one technological type of disaster and one natural - I chose air crashes and earthquakes.
4. Please read page 46 of The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin for a mention of the Pentagon's Air Defence System. Obviously for security reasons such a system is not described in detail in the public domain, but it does exist I can assure you. A visiting professor friend of mine who used to visit the Pentagon regularly told me of its existence, and, from my own military days in UK Home Defence at the height of the IRA Campaign, vulnerable KPs (key points) if deemed necessary would be guarded by mobile Rapier surface to air missile batteries. To suggest that the White House and the Pentagon, probably the most secure two public buildings in the world, does not have an Air Defence System is patently absurd.
I hope I have answered your questions without waffling.
Justin
_________________
Connect to Infinite Consciousness - enjoy the ride! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Mine was not a crash study course ....
Please read page 46 of The New Pearl Harbor .....public buildings in the world, does not have an Air Defence System is patently absurd. |
Thank you for responding so eruditely.
My first point is the continual use of ‘commonsense’.
To suggest there is a sense in common to everyone that points use to somehow know the outcome of a unique event is quite amazing. By your own admission, the event is unique and my ‘commonsense’ tells me that the wings were traveling at the same speed as the rest of aircraft. These would be a comparatively fragile arrangement of alloys and having struck what would be the equivalent of the immovable object, would not have folded back nor ‘snapped off’. They too would simply have ploughed into the vertical structure and immediately been reduced to a shard of shapeless fragments. To expect to see any recognizable parts of an aircraft following a collision with such a structure is an unacceptable premise (landing gear not withstanding).
Your most outlandish claim being;
‘The wings, or an outline of the wings if fire consumed that part of the wreckage, would have been on the lawn’.
As for ‘certainly the engines would have been clearly visible’ = well why? They too would simply have hit at the same speed and would also have been completely fragmented. Having hit at such a speed into something designed to take such impacts, how is it conceivable that either engine would maintain its cohesive shape and structure? This defies ‘commonsense’ either they would both have lost any semblance of shape. In other words they would not simply have ‘broken’ off onto the lawn. For someone who has studied this, your views really defy logic.
The entire aircraft was traveling at the same speed, bits would not simply lose impetus and ‘drop off’.
Okay, on to the point of impact.
I am merely stating that there are only 6 ‘areas’ of The Pentagon that could have been hit, either of the 5 sides or the roof, or the plane could of missed entirely. My point is not to prove nor disprove the validity of the area itself. Simply, I was highlighting that I keep seeing ‘what are the odds?’ I responded, the odds were/are 7 to 1. My guess is that the ‘terrorists’ were simply content with hitting The Pentagon if indeed they were at the controls. I don’t believe that even if the damage was more severe and more were killed, it would make the slightest difference to anything, it would all be repaired and the status quo would exist exactly the same today as it does.
As for the ‘missing’ damage to The Pentagon, in other words, no engine damage, I am unable to comment.
You originally stated;
‘I've actually studied aircrashes as part of a three month Cranfield University Course’.
But now say;
‘Mine was not a crash study course’
You can see why my question was phrased as it was.
Final point regarding The Pentagon defences I asked you to supply evidence of?
I see you point me at a book and I fully expected something along these lines.
I actually have the book in question along with a great many others on the same subject. Many have conflicting information and to use any, all or either as ‘proof’ of anything is not something I would comfortably ever do. If that is your only ‘verfiable source’, then I embrace David Icke and offer our Royal Family a slice of hamster quiche.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
telecasterisation said
| Quote: | You originally stated;
‘I've actually studied aircrashes as part of a three month Cranfield University Course’.
But now say;
‘Mine was not a crash study course’
You can see why my question was phrased as it was. |
I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. I originally said:
| Quote: | | I've actually studied aircrashes as part of a three month Cranfield University Course for International Disaster Management which I completed in 1998. |
In my next post in response to your 'What was the purpose of your air crash study course?' I said:
| Quote: | | Mine was not a crash study course - I was on a Disaster Management Course designed for senior civil servants and members of the military from developing countries so that in time of disaster, a more coordinated, effective and rapid response could be undertaken by the affected country itself with its meagre resources. I was the only Brit on the course as I was undertaking research into a new disaster response mechanism for the UN and the International Community whereby Urban Search and Rescue teams from developed countries could respond effectively within 24 hours to a major disaster such as an earthquake. On the course we had to specialise in one technological type of disaster and one natural - I chose air crashes and earthquakes. |
Whilst not being a professional aircrash investigator, I do know a lot more than the average person in the street. Your comments here I'm finding very hard to understand:
| Quote: | To suggest there is a sense in common to everyone that points use to somehow know the outcome of a unique event is quite amazing. By your own admission, the event is unique and my ‘commonsense’ tells me that the wings were traveling at the same speed as the rest of aircraft. These would be a comparatively fragile arrangement of alloys and having struck what would be the equivalent of the immovable object, would not have folded back nor ‘snapped off’. They too would simply have ploughed into the vertical structure and immediately been reduced to a shard of shapeless fragments. To expect to see any recognizable parts of an aircraft following a collision with such a structure is an unacceptable premise (landing gear not withstanding).
Your most outlandish claim being;
‘The wings, or an outline of the wings if fire consumed that part of the wreckage, would have been on the lawn’.
As for ‘certainly the engines would have been clearly visible’ = well why? They too would simply have hit at the same speed and would also have been completely fragmented. Having hit at such a speed into something designed to take such impacts, how is it conceivable that either engine would maintain its cohesive shape and structure? This defies ‘commonsense’ either they would both have lost any semblance of shape. In other words they would not simply have ‘broken’ off onto the lawn. For someone who has studied this, your views really defy logic. |
I have to ask you again, if the wings 'ploughed into the vertical structure and immediately been reduced to a shard of shapeless fragments' where is the damage to the Pentagon's facade - an object, even one made up of 'comparatively fragile arrangement of alloys' travelling at 500mph would do considerable damage, as would the engines which could well have penetrated the facade. Where is the damage, it's as simple as that?
| Quote: | Your most outlandish claim being;
‘The wings, or an outline of the wings if fire consumed that part of the wreckage, would have been on the lawn’ |
Outlandish seems a very strong term to use - the momentum of the wings on contact with a solid object would continue forwards and then back in a fraction of a second and the idea that they would then become seperated from the fuselage and lie in some part on the lawn is quite conceivable. Likewise the engines would be smashed but would probably IMO still be recognisable and again would have possibly penetrated the reinforced facade.
Now a question for your good self. Do you believe that the Pentagon would have in September 2001 the means to protect itself from an air attack - and if so, in what form would that defence take?
_________________
Connect to Infinite Consciousness - enjoy the ride! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding your ‘credentials’, I was simply attempting to isolate your level of knowledge. You have in no way identified what form your studies have taken? I understand the purpose but not the syllabus.
You say you find it difficult to understand what I am saying regarding the wings? I have re-read what I typed and it is most clear – if the body of the plane can simply crumple into non-recognisable pieces of metal, why would the wings be any different whatsoever? To even suggest they would somehow maintain their structural integrity and simply hit the wall, snap off and end up lying on the lawn as recognisable objects is an astonishing claim.
You seem to be basing your ideas on previous crashes – this was a vertical wall, a unique structure and a relatively fragile alloy tube traveling in the region of 400 – 500mph. You have in no way explained why the wings would simply ‘drop off’. You may have noticed that I served 14 years in the Met Police during which time I saw several road traffic accidents where vehicles had gone head-on into reinforced vertical surfaces, this being the closest comparison I can make.
The average speed of these vehicles was approx 70 – 90 mph and in some cases the vehicles were totally unrecogisable as cars. To multiply the impact speed by say a factor of x5, increase the weight by perhaps a factor of x150 and add considerably more explosive fuel (a factor you have totally ignored – the wings may well have simply exploded as well as disintegrated due to the impact), then the wings would no longer resemble wings in any shape or form.
An additional point. Whilst you say you have additional knowledge regarding aircrashes, this is a totally unique situation and you have nothing upon which to base your opinion, there is no sloping hillside, no forgiving block of flats, just a vertical wall backed with reinforced steel and kevlar. Can you be certain how the flimsy structure of an aircraft traveling at such a velocity would ‘end up’ as we have never been confronted by this before? I clearly made the point, there can be no ‘commonsense’ inherent in people where we all can anticipate exactly how things will respond in a unique situation.
You then ask again;
| Quote: | | I have to ask you again, if the wings 'ploughed into the vertical structure and immediately been reduced to a shard of shapeless fragments' where is the damage to the Pentagon's facade - an object, even one made up of 'comparatively fragile arrangement of alloys' travelling at 500mph would do considerable damage, as would the engines which could well have penetrated the facade. Where is the damage, it's as simple as that? |
I answered that in my previous post and I quote;
As for the ‘missing’ damage to The Pentagon, in other words, no engine damage, I am unable to comment.
What models can be supplied as to how a jet engine will respond when confronted by steel reinforced Kevlar backed vertical structure? I simply do not know the effects. I can however visualize the effects of a heavy horizontally mounted ‘battering ram’ lying just under the pilots’ feet in such circumstances. But then again I am not a structural engineer and the circumstances are wholly unique.
You then ask;
| Quote: | | Now a question for your good self. Do you believe that the Pentagon would have in September 2001 the means to protect itself from an air attack - and if so, in what form would that defence take? |
Of course I can only speculate, for there are sources on the internet that are positive The Pentagon has no missile firing capabilities, whilst others say it does. I would add that, I would expect The Pentagon to have 24/7 air support from fighters, 9/11 too. However, to simply be asked to accept that on the approach of a passenger jet, someone in The Pentagon would be prepared to shoot it down – where would it crash – onto a hotel or gas station, or homes or a freeway? Is it really that simple? I genuinely don’t know.
9/11 was a complete one-off, not even close to Pearl Harbour in delivery or methodology. In hindsight we can sit and be critical about why was this or that not done? It is not that cut and dried.
So to directly answer your question, The Pentagon would have had fighter cover for sure, as for anything else, I just don’t know and just because a book says there are ‘missile batteries’ or you have a friend who cleaned the toilets there once says so – then this is read/write and hearsay and not admissible as evidence.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Telecasterisation - I'm afraid, as I am an active campaigner in getting the truth out about 9/11, I cannot give this thread any more time except to state the following points concerning your last:
1. The damage to the Pentagon's facade is utterly neglible where the engines and tail plane would have hit. This means quite simply no plane the size of a 757 hit the Pentagon. That is hard and fast evidence. Please look for yourself. My belief, my own personal theory which I feel comfortable with, is that it was the much smaller A3 Sky Warrior dressed up for the operation to look the part of a 757 to hoodwink the eyewitnesses who swear blind they saw an airliner crash into the Pentagon.
2. The nosecone of a 757 is made out of carbon fibre - it cannot penetrate six walls including of course the initial reinforced facade.
3. The impact of a 757 against the reinforced facade would have splattered the plane well and truly - perhaps you may be right in what you say as I agree I have not got a previous similar crash to go by. But I'm 100% certain that there would have been a substantial debris field on the lawn in front - far more than 'appeared' on the day.
4. I am also 100% certain that there would have been (and are) surface to air anti-aircraft missiles to be used as a last resort to cover Capitol Hill, the White House and the Pentagon. Yes, there is air cover provided by locally based fighters, but SOPs just for the one day were all cocked up, not to mention the exercises taking place 'by coincidence' on that day.
Just remember we don't have to say what actually happened on September 11 2001, all we have to do is challenge the veracity of the official conspiracy theory.
_________________
Connect to Infinite Consciousness - enjoy the ride! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | I am not a skeptic, I am a devoted member of The Truth Movement
|
Why of course you are. Its obvious from your posts. 
I wonder why you feel the need to say you aren't a skeptic. It would never occur to me to feel the need to state my position. Like all genuine members of the Truth Movement I leave no-one in any doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | I am not a skeptic, I am a devoted member of The Truth Movement
|
Why of course you are. Its obvious from your posts.
I wonder why you feel the need to say you aren't a skeptic. It would never occur to me to feel the need to state my position. Like all genuine members of the Truth Movement I leave no-one in any doubt. |
The Truth Movement is about revealing the truth, no matter what that truth may be. I do not have any preconceived notions about what happened and I question every aspect – how easy it is to simply be fed something and hold it up as ‘factual’.
Blackcat, you have nothing of any value to bring to the debate, a user of bad language and as soon as you are challenged, you shout ‘troll’. I explain my position because it can be confusing and you are obviously confused.
See a brief example of your shining and enlightening contributions, you old sweet talker you;
| Quote: | What is a shill?
Its a lying c*unt. See JayRef for an example. |
| Quote: | | If it was posted in the Troll's dungeon I would know to ignore it and not waste time listening to this moron before I knew what garbage it was. |
| Quote: | | There's that f*ucking smell again. |
| Quote: | | I have said plenty other than what you have mentioned though when referring to such * * ... |
| Quote: | | and Conspiracy theorists are Bullshitters! |
| Quote: | | It is easy to stop. Just f*uck of ... |
| Quote: | | Do you get paid double time on a Sunday Johnny? I see all the other trolls have disappeared for the weekend again. |
| Quote: | | I'm gonna need a snorkel at this rate. What a niff! |
| Quote: | | There's that pong again. |
I have not seen one post from you that was remotely informative or worth reading.
Things don't go your way and you bitch and complain, you are easily one of the biggest trolls I have ever witnessed, only here to bad mouth and heckle.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Goodness haven't you done some trolling!!! Why it is almost as if you are saving up my insults against fuc*ing trolls like you. I have no reservation in using obscenities to respond to supporters of mass murderers like you. Especially devious c*nts like you who pretend to be soooooooooo reasonable and merely asking questions. Pi*s off arse*ole. You are obvious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Goodness haven't you done some trolling!!! Why it is almost as if you are saving up my insults against fuc*ing trolls like you. I have no reservation in using obscenities to respond to supporters of mass murderers like you. Especially devious c*nts like you who pretend to be soooooooooo reasonable and merely asking questions. Pi*s off arse*ole. You are obvious. |
I don't see anything wrong with Tele's wanting to test the strength of a huge number of assumptions that we have made as attempts to fill in the gaps over the past 5 years.
It's only by examining what is really there, instead of just what we think we have, that anything worthwhile will develop to support the players who will take this to the mainstream.
Refusal to jump to conclusions doesn't make a person a troll.
Necessarily  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Justin in the exchanges above moves from referring to "the automatic Air Defence System that protects the Pentagon" as though it were an established fact through comparisons with his UK experience to "I am also 100% certain that there would have been (and are) surface to air anti-aircraft missiles to be used as a last resort to cover Capitol Hill, the White House and the Pentagon."
I have previously looked at this issue, and can find absolutely no evidence or implication that missile defences existed prior to 9/11. To suggest that some kind of automatic system would be installed is impossibly unlikely, given the close proximity to Reagan National Airport and the risk of accidental firing. There are no signs of missile batteries on aerial photographs, and the Secret Service has in the past been in view with shoulder launched SAMs to protect the White House, implying there is no permanent installation. I would welcome any evidence, rather than assumption, that any kind of defensive missile system existed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | Justin in the exchanges above moves from referring to "the automatic Air Defence System that protects the Pentagon" as though it were an established fact through comparisons with his UK experience to "I am also 100% certain that there would have been (and are) surface to air anti-aircraft missiles to be used as a last resort to cover Capitol Hill, the White House and the Pentagon."
I have previously looked at this issue, and can find absolutely no evidence or implication that missile defences existed prior to 9/11. To suggest that some kind of automatic system would be installed is impossibly unlikely, given the close proximity to Reagan National Airport and the risk of accidental firing. There are no signs of missile batteries on aerial photographs, and the Secret Service has in the past been in view with shoulder launched SAMs to protect the White House, implying there is no permanent installation. I would welcome any evidence, rather than assumption, that any kind of defensive missile system existed. |
The assumption seems to be that there was a fixed system of missile batteries, but it could equally refer to 'last ditch' man portable defences.
The real heavy duty 'missile defence system' would be the airbases around DC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eckyboy
Validated Poster
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 162
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I keep hearing certain people on this forum and other related sites going on about how the Pentagon incident detracts from the the truth movement and it will only help to discredit us in the long term. I totally disagree with that argument and I am amazed at the arrogance of some people who think they know better than everyone else despite having access to the same information as we do. It can be argued that there is more than enough evidence already to support 911 as being an inside job without either the Pentagon or WTC7 incidents as Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmeds outstanding book WAR ON TRUTH highlights but personally I see them as pivotal to the truth. where did the engines, wings and tail of the so called plane disappear to? Are we to believe it clipped 5 lamp poles, a power generator and then hit the pentagon and disintegrated but was still solid enough to pierce its way inside the building and then also leave a punch out hole? Anyone who looks at the impact damage can see there is no way it was Flight77 that hit the pentagon unless of course it somehow miraculously managed to fold its wings, tail and both engines into the main fuselage before entering the pentagon. If the US government had definitive footage that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon they would have used it long before now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zlocke
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good point, well made.
Whenever I am asked about what happened on 9/11, I always direct people to look at the lack of a plne at the Pentagon. A 5 year old can see a 757 never hit the building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zak Locke wrote: | Good point, well made.
Whenever I am asked about what happened on 9/11, I always direct people to look at the lack of a plne at the Pentagon. A 5 year old can see a 757 never hit the building. |
Except for the 757 engine parts and other debris lying around. But of course the firemen had them in the back of the fire engine eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I totally disagree with that argument and I am amazed at the arrogance of some people who think they know better than everyone else despite having access to the same information as we do. |
Okay, I have no problem with this, you consider people who think they know better are arrogant.
You then go on to state;
| Quote: | | If the US government had definitive footage that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon they would have used it long before now. |
How ironic that you then finish with the very same transgression that you say you hate.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | Zak Locke wrote: | Good point, well made.
Whenever I am asked about what happened on 9/11, I always direct people to look at the lack of a plne at the Pentagon. A 5 year old can see a 757 never hit the building. |
Except for the 757 engine parts and other debris lying around. But of course the firemen had them in the back of the fire engine eh? |
Except.... Oh dear! Rummy forgot the script!
Again!!
How many more times?
757! 757! 75 f*cking 7!
How hard can it be???
Now Donny, breathe and concentrate. Ok boy and go:
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld in conversation with Parade Magazine at the Pentagon, Friday, Oct. 12, 2001
(and watch the clanger go right over that sharp reporters pointy little head)
They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.
Doh!
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | .. "and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them"
|
So the "missile" had the 757 parts in it that crop up in the photos, or the firemen put them there, or they photoshopped the whole business to make the hole in the Pentagon much bigger than a cruise missile would have made.
That's clear now. Thanks for the clarification. You believe in the cruise missile scenario. That's OK. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rumsfeld may have "mispoke" in the same way that the idiot Bush does all the time, and John Prescott has made into an art form, or more simply the transcript may simply have another typo as well as "filed" for filled", either way it makes no sense as written, and he clearly said, or meant to say, "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, as the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."
As evidence that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane, this frankly has very little value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So the "missile" had the 757 parts in it that crop up in the photos, |
I can post 757 parts and say they hit my house - it doesn't mean they did!! Get a **g grip! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | Rumsfeld may have "mispoke" in the same way that the idiot Bush does all the time, and John Prescott has made into an art form, or more simply the transcript may simply have another typo as well as "filed" for filled", either way it makes no sense as written, and he clearly said, or meant to say, "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, as the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."
As evidence that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane, this frankly has very little value. |
Well, shall we say that's your opinion.
I remember Basil Fawlty accidentally mentioned the war, but he thought he got away with that too.
Aren't they lucky to have people such as yourself nicely explaining what they meant to say, rather than the actual spew they emit from their unguarded vain, arrogant lying mouths?
I bet you know exactly what Larry the Fraudster meant to say too.
Last edited by chek on Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | .. "and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them"
|
So the "missile" had the 757 parts in it that crop up in the photos, or the firemen put them there, or they photoshopped the whole business to make the hole in the Pentagon much bigger than a cruise missile would have made.
That's clear now. Thanks for the clarification. You believe in the cruise missile scenario. That's OK. |
Careful now - it's not me that believes in 'missiles hitting the Pentagon' - it's Rumsfeld, he said it.
And he lives there, so he should know, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | Rumsfeld may have "mispoke" in the same way that the idiot Bush does all the time, and John Prescott has made into an art form, or more simply the transcript may simply have another typo as well as "filed" for filled", either way it makes no sense as written, and he clearly said, or meant to say, "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, as the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."
As evidence that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane, this frankly has very little value. |
Well, shall we say that's your opinion.
I remember Basil Fawlty accidentally mentioned the war, but he thought he got away with that too.
Aren't they lucky to have people such as yourself nicely explaining what they meant to say, rather than the actual spew they emit from their unguarded vain, arrogant lying mouths?
I bet you know exactly what Larry the Fraudster meant to say too. |
You don't know what he said, you only know what's on the transcript. If you think the transcript is gospel, explain why he said the plane was "filed with our citizens" Perhaps you think this is what happened to the real plane, it and the passengers have been concealed in some filing cabinet?
You also have the problem that he says "and" so with your literal reading both "an American Airlines flight filed(sic) with our citizens, and the missile" damaged the Pentagon. Is this a new theory that both a missile and flight 77 hit the Pentagon?
Pulling out just a few words from what people have said, ignoring others and the context in which they have been said, in order to support a pre-conceived theory, is no way to seek the truth. But perhaps the truth is not what you actually want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | Rumsfeld may have "mispoke" in the same way that the idiot Bush does all the time, and John Prescott has made into an art form, or more simply the transcript may simply have another typo as well as "filed" for filled", either way it makes no sense as written, and he clearly said, or meant to say, "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, as the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."
As evidence that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane, this frankly has very little value. |
Well, shall we say that's your opinion.
I remember Basil Fawlty accidentally mentioned the war, but he thought he got away with that too.
Aren't they lucky to have people such as yourself nicely explaining what they meant to say, rather than the actual spew they emit from their unguarded vain, arrogant lying mouths?
I bet you know exactly what Larry the Fraudster meant to say too. |
You don't know what he said, you only know what's on the transcript. If you think the transcript is gospel, explain why he said the plane was "filed with our citizens" Perhaps you think this is what happened to the real plane, it and the passengers have been concealed in some filing cabinet?
You also have the problem that he says "and" so with your literal reading both "an American Airlines flight filed(sic) with our citizens, and the missile" damaged the Pentagon. Is this a new theory that both a missile and flight 77 hit the Pentagon?
Pulling out just a few words from what people have said, ignoring others and the context in which they have been said, in order to support a pre-conceived theory, is no way to seek the truth. But perhaps the truth is not what you actually want. |
Or also just possibly what you are so desperately avoiding?
You do know that liars frequently make freudian slips don't you?
It's how they get caught out, pretty much for millenia now.
It's a common phenomenom we all recognise.
I don't see how that paragraph is out of contect at all, as he then proceeds on obliviously with the somnabulant reporter trailing at his hem to waffle off on another subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | So the "missile" had the 757 parts in it that crop up in the photos, |
I can post 757 parts and say they hit my house - it doesn't mean they did!! Get a **g grip! |
If you can post a photo that shows them up against your house, without faking the photos, then I'd say it either hit your house or people planted the debris.
Your call blackcat - were the photos faked or was the debris planted? An answer without verbal abuse would be welcome, if you're capable of that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | [
You do know that liars frequently make freudian slips don't you?
It's how they get caught out, pretty much for millenia now.
It's a common phenomenom we all recognise.
I don't see how that paragraph is out of contect at all, as he then proceeds on obliviously with the somnabulant reporter trailing at his hem to waffle off on another subject. |
I'll accept that liars make Freudian slips if you will accept that transcript typists make typos - is that fair?
Do you think that liars, having made Freudian slips, are then content to have those slips accurately transcribed and published on their websites?
And what was Freudian about filing the flight with citizens? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | [
You do know that liars frequently make freudian slips don't you?
It's how they get caught out, pretty much for millenia now.
It's a common phenomenom we all recognise.
I don't see how that paragraph is out of contect at all, as he then proceeds on obliviously with the somnabulant reporter trailing at his hem to waffle off on another subject. |
I'll accept that liars make Freudian slips if you will accept that transcript typists make typos - is that fair?
Do you think that liars, having made Freudian slips, are then content to have those slips accurately transcribed and published on their websites?
And what was Freudian about filing the flight with citizens? |
That seems a fair enough deal to me, given that he typo relates to a spelling mistake while Rumsfeld's slip of the tongue relates to something far graver.
And as the article shows, the reporter didn't pursue the information at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | [
You do know that liars frequently make freudian slips don't you?
It's how they get caught out, pretty much for millenia now.
It's a common phenomenom we all recognise.
I don't see how that paragraph is out of contect at all, as he then proceeds on obliviously with the somnabulant reporter trailing at his hem to waffle off on another subject. |
I'll accept that liars make Freudian slips if you will accept that transcript typists make typos - is that fair?
Do you think that liars, having made Freudian slips, are then content to have those slips accurately transcribed and published on their websites?
And what was Freudian about filing the flight with citizens? |
That seems a fair enough deal to me, given that he typo relates to a spelling mistake while Rumsfeld's slip of the tongue relates to something far graver.
And as the article shows, the reporter didn't pursue the information at all. |
Perhaps he didn't pursue it because it was another spelling mistake! You must realise that of the two mistakes in that sentence, you are simply claiming one was a spelling mistake of no consequence and the other was the strangely accurate reporting of a Freudian slip that makes a meaningless sentence, just because to make that assumption suits your particular theory, there is no logic behind it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | [
You do know that liars frequently make freudian slips don't you?
It's how they get caught out, pretty much for millenia now.
It's a common phenomenom we all recognise.
I don't see how that paragraph is out of contect at all, as he then proceeds on obliviously with the somnabulant reporter trailing at his hem to waffle off on another subject. |
I'll accept that liars make Freudian slips if you will accept that transcript typists make typos - is that fair?
Do you think that liars, having made Freudian slips, are then content to have those slips accurately transcribed and published on their websites?
And what was Freudian about filing the flight with citizens? |
That seems a fair enough deal to me, given that he typo relates to a spelling mistake while Rumsfeld's slip of the tongue relates to something far graver.
And as the article shows, the reporter didn't pursue the information at all. |
Perhaps he didn't pursue it because it was another spelling mistake! You must realise that of the two mistakes in that sentence, you are simply claiming one was a spelling mistake of no consequence and the other was the strangely accurate reporting of a Freudian slip that makes a meaningless sentence, just because to make that assumption suits your particular theory, there is no logic behind it. |
And that, my dear fellow, is exactly the kind of blatant sophistry that illustrates your underlying agenda perfectly. It's from a tape transcript (notice the '(inaudible)' inserts?), and equating a transcription spelling mistake (a representational error) with the words used (the purveyors of meaning) is pure shysterism.
Nothing to see here, move on.
Yeah, we know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
