Dispelling Myths: The "Impossible Maneuver"

[camlok]

So what hit WTC 1, 2, and the Pentagon? Some poster stated you are a no planer believer. Is that correct?

Lay out your evidence.

Dog and pony show, Act 2 Scene 1.

You put forward your evidence, mike, for the USGOCT, the rock solid one.

 

[mike2810]

Dog and pony show, Act 2 Scene 1.

Translation.

"I will not provide the explanation I believe in nor attempt to prove it. I would rather troll. "

Please answer the questions
So what hit WTC 1, 2, and the Pentagon? Some poster stated you are a no planer believer. Is that correct?


Why is it so hard for you to come clean and answer?

 

[camlok]

Translation.

"I will not provide the explanation I believe in nor attempt to prove it. I would rather troll. "

Please answer the questions
So what hit WTC 1, 2, and the Pentagon? Some poster stated you are a no planer believer. Is that correct?


Why is it so hard for you to come clean and answer?

It's not hard at all, mike. But it's useless going where you want to go which is all diversions and distractions, just like this one, aimed to get you out of the incredible jams you get yourself into.

We don't know what hit those buildings because, as has been pointed out to you anti-truthers, REPEATEDLY, not a one serial numbered part from any of the alleged 911 planes has been put forward to prove the USGOCT fable. As soon as you face up to that you will realize that your "questions", above, are superficial nonsense, mean only to divert and distract.

 

[mike2810]

It's not hard at all, mike. But it's useless going where you want to go which is all diversions and distractions, just like this one, aimed to get you out of the incredible jams you get yourself into.

We don't know what hit those buildings because, as has been pointed out to you anti-truthers, REPEATEDLY, not a one serial numbered part from any of the alleged 911 planes has been put forward to prove the USGOCT fable. As soon as you face up to that you will realize that your "questions", above, are superficial nonsense, mean only to divert and distract.

What you don't seem to get is you are focusing on one thing while ignoring all the other evidence.

Are you a "No Planer"? YES or NO will do.

 

[camlok]

What you don't seem to get is you are focusing on one thing while ignoring all the other evidence.

More self-describing, mike. You mean "all the other evidence" that you guys won't put forward, let alone discuss.That is all that you guys are about.

Do try to focus. You are ignoring the myriad absolute impossibilities in the USOCT that make it an impossible fable.

Just answer,

How is it possible that not one serial numbered part from any of the alleged 911 planes has been put forward to prove the USGOCT fable. As soon as you face up to and actually address that TOTAL IMPOSSIBILITY you will realize that your "questions", above, are superficial nonsense, mean only to divert and distract.

 

[camlok]

So what hit WTC 1, 2, and the Pentagon?

After you answer the question why have no airplane parts been produced by the US government advancers of the USOCT
you can answer the above, with the available USGOCT evidence - there is some, isn't there, mike?

 

[Thoreau72]

Exactly, mike, and you fail in most every regard, as do your fellow distracters/diversionists.

Your "sources", if you folks have ever mentioned any by name, I've forgotten because you are too ashamed to put them and their "credentials" forward.

You folks can't discuss anything related to the science or events of 911 because, one, you are scared you will put your foot in your mouths, as y'all have done numerous times; two, you focus on your distractions/diversions when you are faced with the myriad impossibilities in the wacky conspiracy theory y'all support, the USGOCT.

You've just come off supporting the crazy idea that steel framed towers have collapse features built right into them.

Americans just love their mythological heroes, especially Hani The Magnificent. :mrgreen:

 

[Thoreau72]

After you answer the question why have no airplane parts been produced by the US government advancers of the USOCT
you can answer the above, with the available USGOCT evidence - there is some, isn't there, mike?

If we apply Occam's Razor to the question and answer, the reason the airplane "debris" from the several sites has never been open to public examination is because a) there is no debris, or b) the debris would destroy the government story.

 

[Quag]

If we apply Occam's Razor to the question and answer, the reason the airplane "debris" from the several sites has never been open to public examination is because a) there is no debris, or b) the debris would destroy the government story.

Stop abusing Occam's razor

 

[camlok]

Stop abusing Occam's razor

Try saying something of substance, Quag, just once. Provide the evidence that shows there were the planes as alleged by the USOCT. How many parts have been identified as coming from the alleged planes?

 

[camlok]

Please answer the questions
So what hit WTC 1, 2, and the Pentagon?

Go ahead and answer the question, mike, "So what hit WTC 1, 2, and the Pentagon?". Of course, you will provide evidence for your reply, won't you?

 

[camlok]

Deuce:

If you noticed the P4911T or CIT supporters are not responding to your posts.

mike, if you will notice, neither Deuce nor any of you other USOCT supporters are responding to the posts that show that Deuce doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Deuce must be lying about being a pilot because his confusion compared to all the experts I have put forward shows Deuce hasn't the foggiest notion about these things, OR, he is lying.

'CONSIDERABLE TRAINING' AND 'IN-DEPTH KNOWLEDGE' NEEDED TO FLY 757 AND 767 AIRCRAFT
Two of the aircraft targeted in the 9/11 attacks were Boeing 757s and the other two were Boeing 767s. Experts have commented how difficult it would have been for amateur pilots, like the alleged hijackers, to fly such aircraft.
Aviation experts told the Chicago Tribune, "Unlike a small private plane where pilots generally fly visually, a commercial plane like those hijacked [on September 11] requires a vast command of navigation techniques as well as in-depth knowledge of their myriad systems, from hydraulics to the autopilot." [7] Michael Barr, the director of aviation safety programs at the University of Southern California, and several commercial airline pilots told the Boston Globe that "they assumed that the terrorists were skilled pilots who had to have received some training in flying transport jets, particularly the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft." [8]

Steven Wallach, an aviation consultant and former airline captain, said that if the hijackers "took the controls at high altitude and a long distance from their targets"--as allegedly happened--"then they likely had considerable training in a 767 or 757." Wallach said the hijackers "would have had to descend and navigate to Washington and New York. They would have had to know how to operate the autopilot, as well as other intricate functions." Boeing 767s and 757s have highly sophisticated "glass cockpits" that include video screens and digital readouts, which require the pilots to have an advanced level of computer skills. "To navigate with that glass cockpit, it can be pretty tricky," Wallach said. [9]


The 9/11 Hijackers: Amateur Aviators Who Became Super-Pilots on September 11 | 911Blogger.com

 

[mike2810]

Go ahead and answer the question, mike, "So what hit WTC 1, 2, and the Pentagon?". Of course, you will provide evidence for your reply, won't you?

Why do you answer questions with questions? Your answer was to ask me what I asked you. Sorry, not playing your game.

 

[Thoreau72]

mike, if you will notice, neither Deuce nor any of you other USOCT supporters are responding to the posts that show that Deuce doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Deuce must be lying about being a pilot because his confusion compared to all the experts I have put forward shows Deuce hasn't the foggiest notion about these things, OR, he is lying.

I am not qualified to fly any Boeing, but I do fly 2 business jets. Even for the smaller business jets, to become certificated to fly them, about 2 weeks of study and practice are required. For the Boeings it could be more than that, but certainly nothing less, and that depends upon the skill and experience of the applicants.

By innuendo, Deuce makes it sound like any cowboy could climb in the airplane and fly it like an Ace, or a Deuce. :mrgreen: Such a claim reveals some measure of misinformation.

The need for training and knowledge of the airplane is the reason the several 757 line pilots at Pilots For Truth are on the record that the Hani Maneuver is so difficult to do. Limitations on airspeed and other things mean something in the real world.

 

[gamolon]

Such a claim reveals some measure of misinformation.

You mean just like Russ Wittenberg's misinformation? The WORNG information he used to formulate his conclusion? Funny how you and everyone else refused to address that fact.

 

[Deuce]

Don't take this as a complete dismissal of your intended point.

How else am I supposed to take it? You literally did not respond to a single point I made.

You say you want to discuss things? Discuss things. Until then, I laugh at your blatant ad hominem.

 

[Deuce]

Well I watched it again Deuce, and I still say you are a sim guy, and you don't fly airplanes much.

Which type ratings do you hold in your regular flying job, or is that too much?

I'm typed Learjet and Citation 500.

Your sim has Hani at 460 knots and as they determined many years ago, the NTSB data does not go below 180 feet altitude. As Cimino pointed out years ago, the whole damn thing is forged.

Keep consuming that bit o' forgery Deuce, it becomes you.

You still haven't provided a single bit of defense of the idea that this maneuver was in any way challenging.

The altitude discrepancy is easily explained by:
1) Altimeter settings
2) Missing/corrupt data from the final second or so, due to the recorder shutting down on impact.

In fact, P4T was caught using incomplete FDR data to "prove" the altitude discrepancy.

 

[Deuce]

Americans just love their mythological heroes, especially Hani The Magnificent. :mrgreen:

It was an easy maneuver. The fact that you find this maneuver miraculous just proves you've never flown a plane in your life.

 

[Deuce]

mike, if you will notice, neither Deuce nor any of you other USOCT supporters are responding to the posts that show that Deuce doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Deuce must be lying about being a pilot because his confusion compared to all the experts I have put forward shows Deuce hasn't the foggiest notion about these things, OR, he is lying.

It is ludicrous to suggest that a hijacker needs to understand hydraulic systems of an aircraft he intends on destroying.

You're letting unidentified "experts" dictate an opinion for you because you don't know crap about flying airplanes.

Finding New York City doesn't require advanced navigation techniques. It's pretty easy to find visually.

Troubleshooting problems in flight requires advanced systems knowledge. Pointing the plane at something does not. The hijackers needed to understand basic control inputs from the yoke, and how to use the power levers. Those are the only systems they even operated.

Tell me: why does a hijacker need to understand, say, the pressurization system? How the oil system functions? What use would a hijacker have for memorizing checklists for an engine failure/fire? Who needs to practice a v1 cut on a plane they're not even going to pilot during a takeoff? Do you even know what a v1 cut is?

Let's say I posted a picture of my ATP certificate. Would you suddenly change your mind on ****in anything?

 

[Thoreau72]

You still haven't provided a single bit of defense of the idea that this maneuver was in any way challenging.

The altitude discrepancy is easily explained by:
1) Altimeter settings
2) Missing/corrupt data from the final second or so, due to the recorder shutting down on impact.

In fact, P4T was caught using incomplete FDR data to "prove" the altitude discrepancy.

YOU sir, have not made your absurd claim that it was easy, there in your Ivory Tower. YOU sir, have not yet remotely overcome the statements of a handful of men who are qualified in the airplane and who fly it for a living.

YOU sir, with every keystroke on this subject, come across as a fraud.

 

[Quag]

YOU sir, have not made your absurd claim that it was easy, there in your Ivory Tower. YOU sir, have not yet remotely overcome the statements of a handful of men who are qualified in the airplane and who fly it for a living.

YOU sir, with every keystroke on this subject, come across as a fraud.

You dont know the first thing about flying if you think it was difficult let alone impossible

 

[Deuce]

YOU sir, have not made your absurd claim that it was easy, there in your Ivory Tower. YOU sir, have not yet remotely overcome the statements of a handful of men who are qualified in the airplane and who fly it for a living.

YOU sir, with every keystroke on this subject, come across as a fraud.

The so-called experts YOU, sir, keep posting, describe a high-G tight spiral. Seeing as how a high-G tight spiral is not depicted in any way, shape, or form, your so-called experts are literally making up a story of their own.

And you think they're experts. Because the internet told you so. :lamo

 

[Thoreau72]

The so-called experts YOU, sir, keep posting, describe a high-G tight spiral. Seeing as how a high-G tight spiral is not depicted in any way, shape, or form, your so-called experts are literally making up a story of their own.

And you think they're experts. Because the internet told you so. :lamo

Anybody that flies the airplane for a living is very much an expert on the airplane and what it will do.

A poster on the internet unwilling to list his ratings or experience, and making absurd posts about how easy it is to slit throats and then fly the airplane with no training is, well, bluffing and not to be believed. eace

 

[Deuce]

Ive posted my experience and type ratings in the past. You forgot. Your problem, not mine.

 

[mike2810]

So T72, explain to us why this is all wrong?

Patrick Smith (airline pilot) disagrees with you regarding Hani Hanjour ability to crash the aircraft. These are not my words but words from those with airline experience. Bottom line some pilots say it could not be done. Others say it could.

There are pilots (commercial) who state"Almost every high-profile airplane crash these days is trailed by a conspiracy theory."
"Hani Hanjour’s flying was exceptional only in its recklessness.* If anything, his loops and spirals above the nation’s capital revealed him to be exactly the ****ty pilot he by all accounts was.* To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it.* Striking a stationary object — even a large one with five beckoning sides — at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult.* To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon’s lawn.* If he’d flown the same profile ten times, seven of them he’d probably have tumbled short of the target or overflown it entirely.
As for those partisan pilots known to chime in on websites, take them with a grain of salt.* As somebody who flies 757 and 767s for a living, I think my testimony carries some weight.* Ask around and you’ll discover that the majority of professional pilots feel the way I do."

Conspiracy Nation: myths, madness, and the ?truth? about 9/11

"Patrick Smith*is an airline pilot, air travel blogger and author. His Ask the Pilot column, from which portions of this website have been adapted, ran in the online magazine Salon.com from 2002 until 2012.
Patrick has appeared on over 300 radio and television outlets, including CNN, PBS, the BBC and National Public Radio. He is regularly cited in print publications worldwide, and was voted one of the “25 Best Bloggers” by TIME magazine. His op-eds and articles have been published in The New York Times, the Boston Globe, and several other newspapers. "


"It’s time for the 9/11 truth movement to resolve its Pentagon debate by applying the scientific method. Doing so points conclusively to large plane impact."
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

"One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11. "
Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect