butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Please Jazz. Would-be has killed the lot of you, but i want to hear this. I'm forcxed to read this silly thread. Why not start a new one?editor said:
911: What makes you suspicious - now with added extra poll option!
- Thread starter taffboy gwyrdd
- Start date
- Status
mauvais
on reddit or something
Maybe Flight 93 was an actual telephone, a big flying telephone, and it was used to fake some calls, and err, yeah, then err, it had to be covered up so they crashed it into an actual plane, one without a number, see, and then shot both of them down just to cover up that, and err... yeah!
Funny, that's exactly how I would describe the Popular Mechanics article. Not to mention your humour above.mauvais mangue said:
I'm a bit bored to tell you truth of editor's incessant yapping on these threads. Strange how all sorts of threads on 9-11 get chucked in the bin, then everyone feigns such eagerness to hear my speculation, doubtless so they can then make out that it is unproven and they can then cosily believe the official theory after all, even if it involved believing that twenty elephants are hiding in the cupboard. Maybe I'll get some energy up for dealing with you lot, but it's like going down a coal mine
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What's your new theory on F93 then Jazz? And what evidence made you change your mind? What convinced you that the eividence you had previoulsy rejected as false as was in fact true?Jazzz said:Funny, that's exactly how I would describe the Popular Mechanics article. Not to mention your humour above.
I'm a bit bored to tell you truth of editor's incessant yapping on these threads. Strange how all sorts of threads on 9-11 get chucked in the bin, then everyone feigns such eagerness to hear my theories. Maybe I'll get some energy up for dealing with you lot, but it's like going down a coal mine
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Jazzz said:Funny, that's exactly how I would describe the Popular Mechanics article. Not to mention your humour above.
I'm a bit bored to tell you truth of editor's incessant yapping on these threads. Strange how all sorts of threads on 9-11 get chucked in the bin, then everyone feigns such eagerness to hear my speculation, doubtless so they can then make out that it is unproven and they can then cosily believe the official theory after all, even if it involved believing that twenty elephants are hiding in the cupboard. Maybe I'll get some energy up for dealing with you lot, but it's like going down a coal mine
Maybe the editor is actually Dick Cheney.
Has anyone seen him around today?
Jazzzz, I really don't understand how anybody tolerates you. You are just ridiculously dishonest. You make a claim - naturally ridiculous - people ask you to back it up, you presumably realise how stupid it is, completely fail to back it up, yet instead of apologising and admitting that you were wrong, like anybody with a shred of integrity would, you have a go at people for daring to ask you to back up your claims. You do this about once every fortnight then repeat the process.Jazzz said:I'm a bit bored to tell you truth of editor's incessant yapping on these threads. Strange how all sorts of threads on 9-11 get chucked in the bin, then everyone feigns such eagerness to hear my speculation, doubtless so they can then make out that it is unproven and they can then cosily believe the official theory after all, even if it involved believing that twenty elephants are hiding in the cupboard. Maybe I'll get some energy up for dealing with you lot, but it's like going down a coal mine
brixtonvilla
should be Oslovilla, really
"Maybe I'll get some energy up for dealing with you lot, but it's like going down a coal mine"
Jazz - just when I think you can't stretch credibility any more, you manage to surprise me. You won't "deal" with anyone - you've been trying for years, and you've convinved no-one as far as I can tell. You are a sad, deluded troll, and the only reason - the only one - you haven't been banned (that I can think of) is that the Editor likes popping your balloons and watch you hold waving pieces of floppy string in the air, still maintaining that they're all still shiny with Disney characters on them. Why d'you do it to yourself? Really, why?
Jazz - just when I think you can't stretch credibility any more, you manage to surprise me. You won't "deal" with anyone - you've been trying for years, and you've convinved no-one as far as I can tell. You are a sad, deluded troll, and the only reason - the only one - you haven't been banned (that I can think of) is that the Editor likes popping your balloons and watch you hold waving pieces of floppy string in the air, still maintaining that they're all still shiny with Disney characters on them. Why d'you do it to yourself? Really, why?
sparticus said:
Folks trying to cover up their inadeqecies or those of the organisations they represent does lot relate to any sort of 'ability to respond' being deliberately ignored in order to cover up some sort of conspiracy theory. It also supposes that politicians who have an agenda of their own are likely to discuss this subject objectively, as opposed to those who actually have some experience in the field.
taffboy gwyrdd said:Ed and MM
As I understand it, it is standard procedure to scramble fighter aircraft in such instances as the controllers experienced. This failed to happen in 4 instances and explanations have always seemed to me to be a bit weak.
MM, I understand that the Pentegon itself is somewhat a military area, or area of considerable military concern.
Ed - The "bungling" is what the official conspiracy says happened i.e that it was all just a cock-up, which maybe it was but there isnt enough evidence for it IMHO.
I have the quotes of many conversations somewhere and there is some curious stuff in there. I'll try and dig it out. I appreciate the challenges btw
Large parts of Washington DC have no-fly zones, it does not mean that prior to 9/11 that they had military air-defense units deployed constantly, nor that they had fighters ready to mount a combat air patrol at a moments notice. Hopefully these sorts of short-comings have been dealt with now. Even if they did have alert fighters (crews dressed, aircraft armed, fueled and pre-checked), it does not necessarily mean that they had position information for the air-liner, therefore they would have had to do a methodical search of the area which would have taken a while.
Ah, look at the fun i've missed, all 17 pages of it! I'd guess it has the usual stuff in it, but i'm bored with this topic these days. I'm only here coz i always have been, and i'd just like to say that a whole host of things makes me suspicious.
But then regular posters will know that.
However, since i find it most unlikely that anyone here will ever know the truth of what happened, i'm bored with it.
I still love that passport one though, floating serenely down from the cockpit completely unsinged, while all around the little fella is total destruction...
The other one i liked was the manuals for last minute revision on how to fly big planes. And how the third wtc fell down without any fire in it. Loads of dodgy stuff really.
However, nothing can be proved and i've said my bit. Who organised the whole event? Who knows, and who cares...
But then regular posters will know that.
However, since i find it most unlikely that anyone here will ever know the truth of what happened, i'm bored with it.
I still love that passport one though, floating serenely down from the cockpit completely unsinged, while all around the little fella is total destruction...
The other one i liked was the manuals for last minute revision on how to fly big planes. And how the third wtc fell down without any fire in it. Loads of dodgy stuff really.
However, nothing can be proved and i've said my bit. Who organised the whole event? Who knows, and who cares...
editor said:Yes, that would be as 'dodgy' as someone reading the Highway Code on the way to a driving test or someone reading revision notes on the way to an exam, wouldn't it?
What more proof of a global conspiracy involving a cast of thousands could you possibly need?!
There is no proof mate. Just conjecture as to what is more likely.
What you say has likelihood, granted. What might make something else more likely would depend, i'd've thought, on whether the plane can be set on automatic pilot with the location of the wtc plugged into the computer. If the reference points can be plugged in by the hijacker, then okay, i can accept your version here.
But if the plane can't be put on autopilot, and the flyer of the plane needed to manually steer the plane into such a (relatively) low height, i reckon last minute revision to be most unlikely. Such skill as would be needed could not come from learning how to fly a wee plane for just 40 hours.
Like i said though, we all can only have conjecture. And to me that means the USG could have been behind it, or it was indeed the hijackers as we've been told.
No-one here can discount either possiblity coz none of us know all the facts, and we probably only know a couple of them, needing resident urban specialists in their field to contribute.
editor said:So why include it in a list of things that "make you suspicious"?
Because it seems to me an extraordinary feat of skill to fly a plane into such a small target.
The way the plane banked to actually smash into the tower indicates to me it wasn't on autopilot, but i'm really no expert at all here.
If you can't put a plane on autopilot in this particular context, then i am suspicious that a man who needs to do last minute revision, having flown for 40 hours to get his PPL, could carry out such a manouvre.
Let alone the hijacker that managed to crash into the pentagon at ground level at exactly the point where the pentagon was.
But look, that's all i am, just a suspicious person when it comes to those protecting and projecting their power.
And, that passport is extremely dodgy!
mauvais
on reddit or something
It's not surprising that they found manuals, or that they would have gone over stuff shortly beforehand. It's not that hard to crash a plane into a big tower at full speed, if you have any understanding of how to control it. What they probably went over was stuff like getting the transponder turned off, which would be far more difficult, or perhaps other contigency plans.
mauvais
on reddit or something
I'll clarify, should this look like pure conjecture. I've never flown a plane in real life, which puts me behind the hijackers in that sense.
I have however spent plenty of time on simulators - as I believe they did - mainly messing about but also going through the lessons learning how to properly fly and navigate. This is mainly little Cessna stuff, which is what they learnt on, but also airliners like the 767 and similar.
I'm about 70% sure I could takeoff, fly, and make some form of survivable landing in a small aircraft like a Cessna.
I'm also about 70% sure that I could fly an airliner into a building of that size from some distance away. It's only hard because it's so big and slow to manouvre. If I'd had training in a real aircraft, I could be 99% sure.
I'm 100% sure that hijackers with training as described could do it.
I have however spent plenty of time on simulators - as I believe they did - mainly messing about but also going through the lessons learning how to properly fly and navigate. This is mainly little Cessna stuff, which is what they learnt on, but also airliners like the 767 and similar.
I'm about 70% sure I could takeoff, fly, and make some form of survivable landing in a small aircraft like a Cessna.
I'm also about 70% sure that I could fly an airliner into a building of that size from some distance away. It's only hard because it's so big and slow to manouvre. If I'd had training in a real aircraft, I could be 99% sure.
I'm 100% sure that hijackers with training as described could do it.
mauvais mangue said:
Just conjecture. Based on your own perceptions of things in life.
The whole day seems to me to have been immaculately planned (indeed, we've been told this), so leaving how to turn off a transponder to the last minute is most unlikely.
Either way, you could be right, i could be, or it might be something else. And that's all we've got.
mauvais
on reddit or something
Like Ed says, if you're about to make some difficult attempt, be it exam, test or flying an airliner into a building, you might well want to make last minute checks about how it's going to work. Even proper airline pilots have a checklist to make sure all the controls are where they should be and that everything is correct.
mauvais
on reddit or something
In possibly the most ridiculous thing I've done for a while, I fired up the simulator, set everything to Realistic, picked a 777 and took off from JFK.
I nearly stalled and crashed into the ground on takeoff, and I was way overspeed for most of the journey, but flying a plane into a building - in a simulator at least - is piss. You can't go wrong. The Chrysler Building, I believe, not that it really matters.
I nearly stalled and crashed into the ground on takeoff, and I was way overspeed for most of the journey, but flying a plane into a building - in a simulator at least - is piss. You can't go wrong. The Chrysler Building, I believe, not that it really matters.
Hey don't talk logic. These 'truth seekers' just 'sense' the right answers - they don't need to think things through or research anything.
Or perhaps they're not half as perceptive as they think. If only they were as discerning, inquisitive and downright dismissive about their own theories and statements...
Or perhaps they're not half as perceptive as they think. If only they were as discerning, inquisitive and downright dismissive about their own theories and statements...
Piloting a plane into a skyscraper - like a runway - that you can see from tens of miles away is probably quite doable.
Piloting a plane into a building on the ground is going to be a lot harder - you have a lot more trouble seeing it from a distance, and your descent has to be timed so you don't crash before it nor sail over the top.
Piloting a plane to hit a building on the ground descending over 5000ft in two minutes at 500mph in a tight 270-degree hairpin - so that all the controllers watching the blip assumed they are watching a fighter jet - and then approaching skimming along the ground to smack into the side of Pentagon were the top brass weren't - all in a 757 - is Top Gun stuff.
Yet Hani Hanjour, the man who was alleged to have carried this out was described as a 'hopeless pilot' who wasn't even allowed to fly a Cessna by himself.
Oh, and he managed to fly in through windows without breaking them! That's got to be pretty impressive.
Piloting a plane into a building on the ground is going to be a lot harder - you have a lot more trouble seeing it from a distance, and your descent has to be timed so you don't crash before it nor sail over the top.
Piloting a plane to hit a building on the ground descending over 5000ft in two minutes at 500mph in a tight 270-degree hairpin - so that all the controllers watching the blip assumed they are watching a fighter jet - and then approaching skimming along the ground to smack into the side of Pentagon were the top brass weren't - all in a 757 - is Top Gun stuff.
Yet Hani Hanjour, the man who was alleged to have carried this out was described as a 'hopeless pilot' who wasn't even allowed to fly a Cessna by himself.
Oh, and he managed to fly in through windows without breaking them! That's got to be pretty impressive.
- Status
Similar threads
