911: What makes you suspicious - now with added extra poll option!
- Thread starter taffboy gwyrdd
- Start date
- Status
editor
hiraethified
Lemme see: follow river and hit the highly distinctive building in front of you?Jazzz said:
http://www.excel7.com/worldwind/Pentagon.jpg
editor 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....And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second."
Danielle O'Brien, air traffic controller at Dulles Airport as related to ABC news
from The Attack on the Pentagon - Serendipity
mauvais manque - how fast were you going in the above frame? do have another go on your simulator but trace the course used, velocity and timing - be interested to know how you get on.
By this time it was flying well in excess of 400 mph and on a trajectory that put it directly on course for the White House. Before getting there however the plane suddenly executed a left-hand descending turn, turning almost a complete circle and dropping 7000 ft in two and a half minutes. This complex manoeuvre levelled out perfectly in line for a direct hit on the Pentagon and it flew the last few hundred yards just a few feet above the ground, clipping trees and lamp poles before ploughing into the Pentagon at an estimated speed of 480 mph.
editor
hiraethified
And why did she think it was a fighter?Jazzz said:
Why, here's the full quote that you - would you believe it! - forgot to mention!
And does she express the slightest doubt anywhere that it wasn't a 757 passenger plane that hit the Pentagon or that there was a fighter on her screen?
No. She hasn't said a fucking word, you twisting, deceitful bullshitter.
She even went to the crash site "to see what happened for herself" and clearly has no doubts about what happened:
Read the full article
http://nineeleven2001.tripod.com/cache/abcnews/2020_011024_atc_feature.html
This little interchange has been a classic insight into how conspiraloons work, twisting an expert's words to suit their fantasies while ignoring anything that doesn't fit.
Shame on you Jazzz. You've been thoroughly exposed here.
Now, about your flight 93 theory....
editor
hiraethified
Why piss about on a simulator when you've got the expert, first hand testimony of the actual flight controller concerned?!!!Jazzz said:
She's in no doubt whatsoever that the Pentagon was hit by a 757 so what you're doing asking people to play games on a fucking PC is anyone's guess.
mauvais
on reddit or something
I had to keep the speed relatively low to make the descent, but added more power at the end; on impact it was about 350kts which is ~400mph.
I don't have the path in and it won't make any difference, but I did descend from your given 5000ft. I timed that and it took just over two minutes. The only difficulty was preventing the aircraft going overspeed; you do this, and bad things happen. I don't know what exactly, but presumably not sudden death like on the simulator.
With the >45 degree bank and 180 degree hard turn I had to pull on leaving Reagan Airport in order to face the target again, I reckon I'd easily be mistaken for a military aircraft on a radar screen, and I didn't crash or overstress the plane in doing so. I know they didn't take off from there or follow my path, but I'm saying that these 'jet fighter' maneouvres of yours are possible and probable.
I don't have the path in and it won't make any difference, but I did descend from your given 5000ft. I timed that and it took just over two minutes. The only difficulty was preventing the aircraft going overspeed; you do this, and bad things happen. I don't know what exactly, but presumably not sudden death like on the simulator.
With the >45 degree bank and 180 degree hard turn I had to pull on leaving Reagan Airport in order to face the target again, I reckon I'd easily be mistaken for a military aircraft on a radar screen, and I didn't crash or overstress the plane in doing so. I know they didn't take off from there or follow my path, but I'm saying that these 'jet fighter' maneouvres of yours are possible and probable.
mauvais
on reddit or something
Furthermore you'd have to fly it low, between 1000 to 300ft as you came in as that's the best - and for them probably only - way to hit the side of the building as they did. You'd have to fly it as if you were going to land maybe half a mile further on.
You'd probably crash it short but it wouldn't exactly explode on impact, and the inertia would carry it on. Everything that happened is consistent with the approach as I've seen it.
You'd probably crash it short but it wouldn't exactly explode on impact, and the inertia would carry it on. Everything that happened is consistent with the approach as I've seen it.
Thank you for reminding me why I try to avoid discussion with you - I have rarely seen something so hysterically off the mark.editor said:
You asked to back up the comment that flight 77 was supposedly flown in a manner "so that all the controllers watching the blip assumed they are watching a fighter jet". That was my comment.
And that's what Danielle O'Brien's quote verified - the air traffic controllers thought they were watching a fighter jet.
Simple, isn't it? But of course YOU then twist my words assuming that I was saying that Danielle O'Brien was maintaining that it was a fighter jet after being told the official story like the rest of us, which I never said at all.
I just took the quote as it was from the Serendipity page - I didn't miss anything off there, in any event it is not 'lying or deceitful bullshit' to quote sections of an interview, or we'd all have to wade through a lot more.
I think there is some no little 'projection' going on with you.
As for demanding that I supply you with my speculations - you can whistle. There is no point discussing anything to do with 9-11 with you. At least (some) other posters are behaving reasonably.
editor
hiraethified
Simple question: why did you miss out the other parts of her statement where she made it absolutely obvious that she thought it was the 757 that hit the Pentagon?Jazzz said:
But of course, you think she's liar anyway because you're repeatedly made claims that it wasn't a 757 that hit the Pentagon, or have you changed your mind about that too?
Now, about this Flight 93 theory of yours.Jazzz said:
Several posters have asked you to fill in the details. Will you do so now please otherwise I can only assume that you're trolling.
Thanks for that mm, can we note 5000ft was from memory, the serendipity page quotes 7000ft also a final impact speed of 480mph. But well done hitting the Pentagon anyway, I wouldn't mind a go myself! Also, I suspect you are a better prospect than Hani Hanjourmauvais mangue said:
I didn't 'miss out' parts of her statement, I just took it from the Serendipity page linked. Jesus! At the time, watching the blip, she along with the other controllers thought they were watching a fighter jet. That's all I said, and that is what the quote backed up.editor said:
Where the fuck did I say she was a 'liar'? She along with most others believe the official story, so she can't be 'lying'.
You are twisting my words again.
As usual you are simply spoiling for a fight, and using whatever device you wish for it.
I have no intention of creating further grounds for discussion with you. Not venturing into a topic is not 'trolling', this is completely ridiculous, but that's the kind of nonsense one comes to expect from a poster who likes nothing more than to throw his moderating weight around, something he really shouldn't do at all, as prole noted, moderators should be neutral from the discussion taking place, but of course the concept that you could get any other member of your moderators to take care of the threads you were personally involved in - a key principle when it comes to judges - well that's taking your toy away.
editor
hiraethified
You haven't answered my question: do you believe it was a hijacked 757 that hit the Pentagon, now that the flight controller has made it clear that's what she thinks?Jazzz said:I didn't 'miss out' parts of her statement, I just took it from the Serendipity page linked.
Not venturing into a topic is not 'trolling', this is completely ridiculous, but that's the kind of nonsense one comes to expect from a poster who likes nothing more than to throw his moderating weight around, something he really shouldn't do at all, as prole noted, moderators should be neutral from the discussion taking place, but of course the concept that you could get any other member of your moderators to take care of the threads you were personally involved in - a key principle when it comes to judges - well that's taking your toy away.
And I'd be careful about with your criticisms of the moderating because I've been very, very tolerant of you: in fact, several others have asked for you to be banned because of your activities on threads like this.
I refer you to these very recent posts by others in this thread who are equally pissed off with your evasive, disruptive conduct here:
gurrier said:
Now will you finally explain your fascinating theory about Flight 93 and explain what made you change your mind?brixtonvilla said:
i'd have to agree with yous both on this one; on the one hand, imo jazzz does post up a lot of stuff and just move on without it's mention if it's found to be shit, and seems to believe whatever he reads sometimes fairly indiscriminately before passing it on to us here,editor said:
but i tend to agree with him in being uncomfortable with the overlap between editor being highly involved as a poster in a debate, and also moderating it, and they seem to merge into one without me knowing when he's speaking in what capacity, which i find hard as i tend to agree with his moderating but often (though often not) disagree with opinions. and i think if someone else had called editor "you twisting, deceitful bullshitter" without real cause in this case, where he's being quite honest about what he's saying, then they'd be getting asked to apologise.
editor
hiraethified
I've already been outrageously tolerant of Jazzz's disruptive behaviour over the years - so much so, in fact, that many posters have emailed me asking why on earth he's allowed to keep on posting here.neilh said:
And I'd say the way he brought up the wild claim that the entire 'purpose' of Flight 93 may have been to "generate" the calls from passengers and then promptly refused to discuss a single detail -despite being repeatedly asked by a host of posters - is indeed the conduct of a twisting, deceitful bullshitter.
yeah, i'd agree with you there on both points, but i thought (and mebbe i've misread, but it seemed quite straight forward) that the twisting decietful bullshitter refered to the danielle o'brien thing, where he doesn't seem to be bullshitting, or calling her a liar as you seem to have implied.editor said:
Jazzz, the air traffic controller who you quoted does not agree with any of your mutually contradictory theories.
1. She appears certain that a 757 hit the pentagon - I'm sure that at least one of your bonkers theories holds that it doesn't exist.
2. She initially thought the 757 was a military plane because it was flown in a manner that was not safe. You have claimed that this observation was alluding to the great skill of the pilot - which is why you left out the rest of the quote. If you think about it (hah!) you may be able to see that the observation of the person quoted is directly opposite to the conclusion you are trying to draw. A pilot with great skill would not need to carry out dangerous manouevres which might have led to a premature crash in order to hit the biggest building in the world, which must be some 100 times a bigger target than your average runway.
1. She appears certain that a 757 hit the pentagon - I'm sure that at least one of your bonkers theories holds that it doesn't exist.
2. She initially thought the 757 was a military plane because it was flown in a manner that was not safe. You have claimed that this observation was alluding to the great skill of the pilot - which is why you left out the rest of the quote. If you think about it (hah!) you may be able to see that the observation of the person quoted is directly opposite to the conclusion you are trying to draw. A pilot with great skill would not need to carry out dangerous manouevres which might have led to a premature crash in order to hit the biggest building in the world, which must be some 100 times a bigger target than your average runway.
editor
hiraethified
Thing is, he's been selectively (mis) quoting people for years in his attempts to get people to believe his ever-shifting conspiracy fantasies.neilh said:
The way he omitted the salient part of the quote is typical of his behaviour, as is the way he refuses to research anything properly, preferring to parrot equally selectively quoted guff from mad-as-a-potato websites.
I'm fed up with it. It's one thing posting up barking theories, but if he refuses to engage anyone who reasonably questions the claims or even acknowledge that the fact that he's got it wrong, then there's not much point debating the issue.
mauvais mangue said:
The morning of 12 September 2001, in the office of a major newsweekly, where people are dicussing how difficult it all must have been. The argument that it's not intrinsically harder than, say a major street party (or bank job) fails because they don't have those experiences.
"OK, who's got MS Flight Simulator?"
8 or 10 hands.
"And who took out the Sears Building, first time you fired it up?"
Half a dozen sheepish hands
mauvais mangue said:
But of course Microsoft is in league with the lizards! They'll have sent an email to Homeland Security.
* Hides from Men in Black *
And, oh, on the manuals thing: until I started scanning pilots' forums I didn't realise how much they rely on manuals. If there's any kind of emergency the first thing a professional pilot does is reach for a manual.
* Buys train ticket *
So even less surprising that a non-professional would have a quick shufty on the way in.
I never said she didn't - indeed we all believed the official story in the days that followed, I'm sure she likely still believes it. The point I was making, which was a throwaway, was that the manouevering was such that at the time the air traffic controllers thought they were watching a fighter.gurrier said:
That was all.
editor asked me to back it up, so I did with a quote which proved that all the air traffic controllers thought they were watching a fighter at the time.
No big deal about it.
WouldBe said:A 16ft wide cockpit into a 208ft wide building. Small target? Extraordinary feat?
The way you put it, no, it sounds quite easy actually.
But the way you put it is not the way it was. Firstly there was an up and down dimension as well as a width dimension, and secondly the way the plane banked just prior to smashing into the building made it look all pretty skilful really. Also was the speed at that (lack of) height.
But if it could be done on autopilot, then i'd be prepared to accept any dick or harry could do this.
[btw, many years ago i too was doing my PPL on a two-seater cessna and got as far as 20 hours or so. I then gave up when it was time to do my first solo flight! My point is that if i had then moved up to this big fuck-off jet plane and had to do what those hijackers apparantly did, then sorry, no way could i do it.]
No-one has addressed my question as to whether autopilot would be able to cope with the path that those flights took. If it can, then i will discount this particular aspect of dodginess.
But there's still one shed load of dodginess to be addressed.
- Status
Similar threads
