911: What makes you suspicious - now with added extra poll option!

[mauvais]

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.

It's piss. It's nothing to do with autopilot at all; it's just dead easy. Tallest building in the city. The fact that they had to bank indicates a lack of skill - a correction was needed. IIRC the video of the first one, shot by the firefighters, doesn't indicate any bank.

In any case, it's easy. If a pilot is good enough to land a plane, and I'm talking any plane, they can direct an airliner into a great big building. It doesn't even take that kind of skill; as long as you know the basics of manoeuvring and are prepared for the differences between a Cessna and a 757. Piss.

 

[Techno303]

It's piss. It's nothing to do with autopilot at all; it's just dead easy. Tallest building in the city. The fact that they had to bank indicates a lack of skill - a correction was needed. IIRC the video of the first one, shot by the firefighters, doesn't indicate any bank.

In any case, it's easy. If a pilot is good enough to land a plane, and I'm talking any plane, they can direct an airliner into a great big building. It doesn't even take that kind of skill; as long as you know the basics of manoeuvring and are prepared for the differences between a Cessna and a 757. Piss.

I would have thought you would expect the plane to bank sharply with a novice pilot. To get it to fly straight, smack, into the building would require (a little more) skill.

 

[fela fan]

It's piss. It's nothing to do with autopilot at all; it's just dead easy. Tallest building in the city. The fact that they had to bank indicates a lack of skill - a correction was needed. IIRC the video of the first one, shot by the firefighters, doesn't indicate any bank.

In any case, it's easy. If a pilot is good enough to land a plane, and I'm talking any plane, they can direct an airliner into a great big building. It doesn't even take that kind of skill; as long as you know the basics of manoeuvring and are prepared for the differences between a Cessna and a 757. Piss.

I accept then.

 

[fela fan]

So, let's move onto one of the hijacker's passports being found completely unsinged in amongst the mass of dust and ash on the ground.

It survived wonderfully from that huge inferno, and it was conveniently one of the hijacker's. Meanwhile the black boxes were destroyed apparantly.

How can we solve this dodgy aspect of the events that day?

 

[Techno303]

So, let's move onto one of the hijacker's passports being found completely unsinged in amongst the mass of dust and ash on the ground.

It survived wonderfully from that huge inferno, and it was conveniently one of the hijacker's. Meanwhile the black boxes were destroyed apparantly.

How can we solve this dodgy aspect of the events that day?

That that aspect of this sorry tale is in fact a pile of poo?

 

[fela fan]

That that aspect of this sorry tale is in fact a pile of poo?

Could you rephrase that, i'm not getting any unambiguous meaning from it.

 

[Techno303]

Could you rephrase that, i'm not getting any unambiguous meaning from it.

Alright then, here goes:

It is quite probable that a small event that may or may not have occurred could have been fabricated during the occasion that even bigger events were occurring.

How’s that?

 

[fela fan]

Alright then, here goes:

It is quite probable that a small event that may or may not have occurred could have been fabricated during the occasion that even bigger events were occurring.

How’s that?

Ah yes, the implanting of 'information' designed to confuse the issue.

We've done this about two years ago. Posters (rightly) thought as you say here techno and posed the question. I remember finding some links (proper ones) to confirm that a member of the authorities did indeed inform the press that a passport had been found. To be honest i'm not arsed to go searching again coz i'm pretty bored with this topic now. You'll just have to trust me mate!

However this one seems a wee different in that it is looking at the dodgy aspects as its central theme. Let me turn to another one...

 

[editor]

So, let's move onto one of the hijacker's passports being found completely unsinged in amongst the mass of dust and ash on the ground.

So you accept that it was indeed a 757 that hit the Pentagon, yes?

As for the passport, it's improbable but not impossible (it's not unusual for papers to survive major explosions - witness the streets full of papers after the WTC went down), but in the grand scheme it's an irrelevance.

Whether someone made up the story or not of the passport has no bearing on the major events of the day.

 

[Techno303]

Ah yes, the implanting of 'information' designed to confuse the issue.

We've done this about two years ago. Posters (rightly) thought as you say here techno and posed the question. I remember finding some links (proper ones) to confirm that a member of the authorities did indeed inform the press that a passport had been found. To be honest i'm not arsed to go searching again coz i'm pretty bored with this topic now. You'll just have to trust me mate!

However this one seems a wee different in that it is looking at the dodgy aspects as its central theme. Let me turn to another one...

Yes, yes I know…I’m being light hearted. Please god, do not proceed to give me a lecture on disinformation.

 

[fela fan]

Ah yes, the pentagon.

I have a link to a piece of film (about four or five minutes long) here that takes a wee while to load, but if nothing else it's a well crafted piece of film(ography)!

If it's as the film says, then dodgy it all is.

But i'm aware that those with agendas could have lied or faked a whole load about the film. But on the other hand a lot of what it says resonates to me, and it really is very well made.

In fact, it would be good to get the opinions of those who object to those of us who believe it may have been the USG behind the attacks. And from those who make films and from those who know anything about the company that made this film.

http://members.shaw.ca/freedomseven/pentagonlies.swf

[be a bit patient for it to load, even on broadband]

 

[J77]

Has anyone mentioned the skill needed to fly a plane smack bang into the middle of a skyscraper, or is this quite easy to acheive?

 

[fela fan]

Yes, yes I know…I’m being light hearted. Please god, do not proceed to give me a lecture on disinformation.

Settle down lad, i'd not dream on lecturing anybody. Who am i to do that?

And i'm in a particularly good mood these days myself, since the back of 2005 has finally been achieved...

 

[fela fan]

So you accept that it was indeed a 757 that hit the Pentagon, yes?

I don't accept anything mate. I just remain deeply suspicious, and am still waiting for a proper independent investigation into the whole events, that at the minimum would hold bush accountable for at the least negligence while on duty.

Have a look at the link i just provided and let us know your reactions. I know you're into photography and web stuff.

You should know by now that i entertain three possible scenarios: it's as we have been told by the USG, they let it happen, they made it happen.

 

[editor]

But i'm aware that those with agendas could have lied or faked a whole load about the film. But on the other hand a lot of what it says resonates to me, and it really is very well made.

What a load of fucking comic book shit that film is. It's packed full of the usual selectively quoted bollocks which simply ignore anything that doesn't fit their theory. Why else would it ignore the ample eye witness testimony from people who clearly stated that they saw the passenger jet?

And a load of quotes from people I've never fucking heard of is hardly likely to impress, neither is showing a load of competely unrelated crash scenes.
What's the point of these meaningless comparisons?

And they've used the same unqualified, misleading, selective quote from the flight controller as Jazzz. Typical.

And why they keep making a deal of people saying that it sounded like a missile is fucking beyond me. What else would a high speed jet crashing into a building sound like?

It's a conspiraloons p0rn film for the terminally gullible.

What a waste of three mintes that was.

 

[fela fan]

You didn't like it then!

Oh well.

 

[dylanredefined]

I thought the cockpit passed through the buildings or bits of it did .So the hijacker body and his passport may have been thrown clear .The black boxes are normally located at the back of the plane so would have been caught in explosion fire and collapse of building .I doubt there has been a lot of research pre 911 into what happens when a jet hits a sky scraper .

 

[WouldBe]

Has anyone mentioned the skill needed to fly a plane smack bang into the middle of a skyscraper, or is this quite easy to acheive?

Yes and yes.

 

[WouldBe]

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,

So you accept that 16ft into 208 ft is easy.

How about a 16ft high fuselage into a 1000ft high building. That should be even easier then.

But if it could be done on autopilot, then i'd be prepared to accept any dick or harry could do this.

Conspiraloons regularly point out that the bank into the second tower exceeded design parameters. Why would an auto pilot allow this? It had to be done manually.

 

[WouldBe]

I thought the cockpit passed through the buildings or bits of it did .

Which would make it even more likely that the passport of the pilot was found outside the tower.

 

[fela fan]

So you accept that 16ft into 208 ft is easy.

How about a 16ft high fuselage into a 1000ft high building. That should be even easier then.



Conspiraloons regularly point out that the bank into the second tower exceeded design parameters. Why would an auto pilot allow this? It had to be done manually.

Please quit referring to me as a conspiraloon. Firstly it's rude, secondly it's just plain lazy, and thirdly i'm not.

Yes, i accept both of those are easy enough in themselves. But you've more convincing to do, coz that's still not the whole context. I presume when the hijackers took control of the aircraft (assuming this premise is true), they were several thousand feet up in the air. To get from say 18,000 feet down to less than 1000 feet and arriving at that height and at that width (of the tower) at exactly the right time seems to me a great feat of flying.

Granted it was a very clear day (and this could not have been assumed in the planning of the attacks - it could equally have been a grey day with poor visibility), but can you help me accept that the training these pilots had had on a cessna and presumably simulators (if that latter is true) was enough to carry out this feat manually?

Let's just deal with the whole context, coz that's the only way i can accept your premise over my suspicions.

 

[fela fan]

Which would make it even more likely that the passport of the pilot was found outside the tower.

And are the black boxes located in the rear of the plane as dylan said, or in the cockpit as i always thought?

 

[fela fan]

Which would make it even more likely that the passport of the pilot was found outside the tower.

The cockpit passed through the tower, enough to throw out a whole unsinged unburnt passport?

So the plane slams into a building and has enough force and momemtum for the front of it to exit 208 feet later, in effect unbroken??

 

[Techno303]

And are the black boxes located in the rear of the plane as dylan said, or in the cockpit as i always thought?

You may have been thinking incorrectly.

 

[fela fan]

You may have been thinking incorrectly.

That easily happens.

It's taking too long to load, but actually it makes sense to me, coz no doubt tails and the back bit break off pretty easily.

 

[WouldBe]

To get from say 18,000 feet down to less than 1000 feet and arriving at that height and at that width (of the tower) at exactly the right time seems to me a great feat of flying.

You claim you have had 20+ hours flying experience on a cessna. After how many hours did you learn to land the aircraft?

Considering landing is one of the most vital steps in learning to fly I would have thought it was taught as soon as possible. I have had only a 1 hour sample lesson and brought the aircraft back to the airfield and lined it up with the 'runway'. It was only just before touch down that the pilot took control.

Why do you think descending from a height to near ground level, flying straight and level (to hit the towers) is any more difficult than landing a plane?

 

[Techno303]

That easily happens.

It's taking too long to load, but actually it makes sense to me, coz no doubt tails and the back bit break off pretty easily.

Yes, and I would imagine also because, in general, it is the one part of the plane that often remains intact. I am thinking of the Helios crash as a recent example…but we digress.

Afternote:…ah ha...Wikipedia, suggests that they are put in the rear because recently they have been put in this position as “the entire front of the aircraft acts as a "crush zone" to reduce the shock that reaches the recorder.”

 

[fela fan]

You claim you have had 20+ hours flying experience on a cessna. After how many hours did you learn to land the aircraft?

Considering landing is one of the most vital steps in learning to fly I would have thought it was taught as soon as possible. I have had only a 1 hour sample lesson and brought the aircraft back to the airfield and lined it up with the 'runway'. It was only just before touch down that the pilot took control.

Why do you think descending from a height to near ground level, flying straight and level (to hit the towers) is any more difficult than landing a plane?

I didn't claim i had flying experience, i simply stated that i had. Since this was about 25 years ago it's not certain in my memory when i first landed, but probably in the second or third lesson. Early for sure. I also happened to be learning how to drive at the same time and remember thinking that the plane was easier...

As for your final question, i didn't actually say that at all, but we're not talking two seater cessnas here, huge jet planes. I could crash a cessna, i could land one (well many years ago), but i don't think i can say the same about a huge fucking plane.

I'm sure i'd find a huge articulated lorry harder to negotiate than a car.

 

[WouldBe]

As for your final question, i didn't actually say that at all,

Maybe not but you implied it by wittering on about the small target that the towers presented.

but we're not talking two seater cessnas here, huge jet planes.

Which are more stable than a light aircraft and aren't as easilly thrown off course by cross winds etc.

I'm sure i'd find a huge articulated lorry harder to negotiate than a car.

The flight into the north tower made one left turn off it's flight plan to follow a straight road into NYC giving the pilot 60+ miles to gradually line up with the tower before flying into it.

The flight into the pentagon flew for some distance down a main road (below an office window), straight over the road around the pentagon and in through the door. Another straight and gradual descent. (where this miraculous 270 degree turn and 5000ft dive figure in this manouver I haven't got a clue)

So there were no 'articulated lorry' type sharp turns to make for these flights. The only sharp turn being when the plane banked at the last minute into the south tower but then the flight path for this aircraft had a lot more turns in it anyway so must have been flown by a much more experienced pilot that the other 2 flights.

We already know that the USG have cocked up with identifying who the hijackers are so the fact that the USG claim the 'worst' pilot was on the most difficult flight path is hardly suprising.

 

[pk]

The cockpit passed through the tower, enough to throw out a whole unsinged unburnt passport?

So the plane slams into a building and has enough force and momemtum for the front of it to exit 208 feet later, in effect unbroken??

If you've seen the footage of the plane hitting the tower, you can clearly see the front of the aircraft exit the other side of the building before the fuel tanks blow up - and anything in that cockpit would have likely been blown clear, carrying the forward momentum of the plane and given added velocity by the blast.