1810 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 07 March 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

Rationalizing and inflating a poor pilot's flying skills by citing his religious fanaticism is rather a sign that the debate has been lost.

Are you learning impaired?

MID did not inflate anyone's pilot skills by citing religious fanaticism.  I return to the two possible conclusions I've reached regarding your insistence to continue on this bent of yours.  You are either a complete idiot or a flaming troll.  Which is it?  Or perhaps both?

Babe Ruth, on 07 March 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

Making a mountain out of a molehill, he said she said, whilst ignoring the substance of the discussion is another sign the debate has been lost.

How can pointing out a falsehood perpetrated by you be considered "making a mountain out of a molehill?"

Babe Ruth, on 07 March 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

Yeah Boo, I knew this heart surgeon who had lost 2 fingers on each hand, and a thumb on the other.  What he lacked in dexterity he made up for with his strong faith in Buddha.  

Don't quit your day job to become a comedian.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 07 March 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

Rationalizing and inflating a poor pilot's flying skills by citing his religious fanaticism is rather a sign that the debate has been lost.

Making a mountain out of a molehill, he said she said, whilst ignoring the substance of the discussion is another sign the debate has been lost.

Yeah Boo, I knew this heart surgeon who had lost 2 fingers on each hand, and a thumb on the other.  What he lacked in dexterity he made up for with his strong faith in Buddha.  

I understand what you are getting at Babe Ruth.

You were discussing the manoeuvre and piloting skills, and the response which came to that was, well… it could be done because it was the work of a religious fanatic.  It was a lacking argument if ever there was one (indeed we saw a U.S. citizen crash their plane into a building more recently due to financial issues).  Of all the possible motives, some official story adherents hold up the religion card as though it negates closer inspection of the technicalities.

We all know that religious fanaticism (or any other motive) does not grant superhuman powers, though one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise with some of the things we hear.  Anyhow, you have already noted that interpretation was intended humorously: -

Babe Ruth, on 06 March 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

The light-hearted interpretation is simply humor, but the more sober analysis makes me wonder why so many of my fellow americans give so much credit to, and have such a fear of, muslims?

It appears your explanation has been bypassed, judging by the continued over literal treatment of your comments.  But the point of your interest is clear – the apparent desire to insert religion as some sort of explanation for the technical points you raise, which indeed shows a lack of real argument.

By the way, the NTSB CSV file for the Flight 77 FDR shows a peak 1.75 Gs, just to clear that up from earlier.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 07 March 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

I understand what you are getting at Babe Ruth.

You were discussing the manoeuvre and piloting skills, and the response which came to that was, well… it could be done because it was the work of a religious fanatic.  It was a lacking argument if ever there was one (indeed we saw a U.S. citizen crash their plane into a building more recently due to financial issues).  Of all the possible motives, some official story adherents hold up the religion card as though it negates closer inspection of the technicalities.

We all know that religious fanaticism (or any other motive) does not grant superhuman powers, though one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise with some of the things we hear.

Are you also missing the point Q24?

MID in no way attempted to explain any technical expertise or piloting skill with religious fanaticism.  He indicated that it wasn't a complex maneuver that anyone with minimal experience could likely perform.

The mention of the fanaticism was merely to explain that it requires something like that to actually go through with such an action.

Q24, on 07 March 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

Anyhow, you have already noted that interpretation was intended humorously: -

Humorous for him perhaps, and anyone else wanting to mock along with him.  No problem there, however, he wasn't mocking anything that MID actually intended.  You don't see a problem with that?

Q24, on 07 March 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

It appears your explanation has been bypassed, judging by the continued over literal treatment of your comments.  But the point of your interest is clear – the apparent desire to insert religion as some sort of explanation for the technical points you raise, which indeed shows a lack of real argument.

Are you defending Babe Ruth merely because he shares in your beliefs about a conspiracy theory?  From where I sit his mocking portrayal of MID's commentary has no basis in reality and therefore no validity.  Why would you defend such a thing Q24?

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 08 March 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

Are you also missing the point Q24?

MID in no way attempted to explain any technical expertise or piloting skill with religious fanaticism.  He indicated that it wasn't a complex maneuver that anyone with minimal experience could likely perform.

The mention of the fanaticism was merely to explain that it requires something like that to actually go through with such an action.


Humorous for him perhaps, and anyone else wanting to mock along with him.  No problem there, however, he wasn't mocking anything that MID actually intended.  You don't see a problem with that?


Are you defending Babe Ruth merely because he shares in your beliefs about a conspiracy theory?  From where I sit his mocking portrayal of MID's commentary has no basis in reality and therefore no validity.  Why would you defend such a thing Q24?

I’ve given my opinion above.

I think we are all on different wavelengths, and interpretations of what was intended are personal.  I interpret that MID requested “religious fanaticism” be added to the equation in response to technical issues and I understand why Babe Ruth would emphasise, mock and find intrigue in that.

We all know that “religious fanaticism” did not make for a better pilot, nor was it relevant to ability to perform the manoeuvre.  Babe Ruth was just mocking that view to highlight his opinion that “religious fanaticism” is not a feasible response/avoidance to the technical issues raised.  An idea which, as Babe Ruth also pointed out, is as intriguing to some as it is humorous.

Never mind.  I’ve had people ask more than once how invisible, time-travelling ninjas or some such planted the WTC charges.  Of course no one really thinks that is the argument.  It is just used to mock and attempt to make the point that charges could not have been placed undetected.  That is far worse in my opinion and people do similar all the time.

I remember once, someone even mocked my argument by comparing it to a comic strip barbarian!  

I’m not getting into it further than that.

MID and Babe Ruth’s posts are there for anyone to read for themselves.

[Babe Ruth]

Thank you!

Yes, 1.75G sounds right, as the highest recorded value, with 1.17 as a sort of 'average' recorded value.  Point is that it never showed a value even close to that calculated as necessary for the pullout.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

Thank you!

Yes, 1.75G sounds right, as the highest recorded value, with 1.17 as a sort of 'average' recorded value.  Point is that it never showed a value even close to that calculated as necessary for the pullout.

Sorry, I gave you misinformation there…

1.75G was the highest known value prior to the VDOT antenna, before the last 4 seconds of data from the FDR CSV file were decoded.

Those final seconds actually recorded a maximum value of 2.26G

See graph on pg.12: -

http://www.journalof...ltimeter_92.pdf


Possible paths, over the VDOT antenna and Navy Annex to reach the first light pole, have been calculated which incur 1.6 - 1.9G

See “Correct Calculations” halfway down this page: -

http://www.cesura17....o/balsamo2.html


These possible paths are 1) within bounds of the FDR values and 2) within operating limits of a 757.

There is no barrier to the physical manoeuvre.

On the other hand Babe Ruth, we now have a greater G force than first believed for the pilot to deal with.

[Babe Ruth]

Agreed.

There is no barrier, but there are still very large demands for the pilot flying a strange and very complex airplane at speeds (that, according to some sources, exceed the practical limitations of the airplane) more than twice as fast as he has ever flown.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 09 March 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

Agreed.

There is no barrier, but there are still very large demands for the pilot flying a strange and very complex airplane at speeds (that, according to some sources, exceed the practical limitations of the airplane) more than twice as fast as he has ever flown.

But, that didn't keep the terrorist from slamming American 77 into the Pentagon, which is evident. At what point did he advance the throttles?

[skyeagle409]

Ansy, on 09 March 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

All sounds a bit suspect to me!

Can you be more specific?

All a person has to do, is to determine what happened to the passengers and crew of American 77, and of course, the airframe attached to that flight. Perhaps, they can contact American Airlines, the operator of American 77, and ask the airline what happened to American 77, and then, contact the FAA and ask why the registration number for the airframe of American 77 was deregistered, which is:


American 77

Registration number: N644AA

Serial number: 24602

Model: B-757-223

Edited by skyeagle409, 09 March 2012 - 08:33 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Better yet Ansy, simply contact the government and ask it what happened.  Corporations and governments are well known for their truthful statements.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 09 March 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Better yet Ansy, simply contact the government and ask it what happened.  Corporations and governments are well known for their truthful statements.

Why not ask American Airlines, the operator of American 77, since it is not a government agency. We definitely can't ask those 9/11 conspiracy folks who are nortorious for spreading misinformation and disinformation.

Just look how they misidentified aircraft at Cleveland airport and their claims that no aircraft crashed at Shanksville, and some who have claimed that no aircraft crashed at the Pentagon and that the fallen light poles were planted the night before the attack.

Check this out and understand how far the 9/11 conspiracist are willing to go to push disinformation.





Here is another depicting a cruise missile in the colors of American Airlines, which obviously could not have knocked down all of  those light poles.















Now, look very carefully and you can see the vertical stabilizer of a B-757, which is much too large to have been the stabilizer of a Global Hawk or even a cruise missile.




And, this is the airframe that was American 77.


My link

Edited by skyeagle409, 09 March 2012 - 09:15 PM.

[MID]

Babe Ruth, on 06 March 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

Thank you Boo, for doing the legwork.  Finally, we can get to the bottom of this tempest in a teapot.

MID's point was that religious fanaticism inspired Hani.  I'm sure we all agree on that part of the official narrative.  I certainly have no problem understanding that religious fanaticism drives a very large part of the entire Official Conspiracy Theory.

The logical implications, taken in context of the conversation MID and I were having then, is that by way of his religious fanaticism, Hani somehow or other was able to perform an extremely difficult maneuver.  Some Boeing qualified pilots, USAF types and Navy too I think, say the maneuver is impossible.  For the sake of discussion I'm willing to say possible but HIGHLY unlikely.  Maybe they are correct.  We're talking semantics.

You missed it.


There is no "Official Conspiracy Theory".
You have one, certainly, but it's certainly not official.

Religious zeal inspiring the terorists?
Of course.

But the real point was that the maneuvers anyone executed on 9-11 in an aircraft weren't impossibble, nor difficult.  
Obviously, your piloting and aerospace experience dwarfs mine.  It's also obvious that you don't particularly like me, and would predfer to see me humiliated if possible, but still, it doesn't change the fact that you missed the point, and the reality of the situation.

No difficulty was required to execute 9-11-01.  No more than blowing one's self up with a bomb for 77 virgins.

The difficulty is in the pilot (the real pilot) contemplating such actions as these fellows did on 9-11-01.
They are impossible maneuvers from that respect.



Maybe that makes some sense?

I know it doesn't keep the "argument" going, but then again...I'm not all that interested in your arguments.

[Babe Ruth]

No sir, I get it.

At first I didn't, but I do now, for about 6 years running.  Magnificent sleight-of-hand by the perpetrators.

I think you misunderstand the term Official Conspiracy Theory.

We must start at the beginning and understand and acknowledge that multiple people were involved in causing the events of the day.  They planned it and executed it, no question.

Therefore, a conspiracy DID INDEED play out that day, assuming one operates by dictionary definitions.  The only question is just "who were the conspirators?"  Who were the players that executed the plans?

The 'official' version of the conspiracy is that 19 arabs with box cutters hijacked commercial airliners and crashed them into buildings, with one coming up a bit short in Shanksville PA.

That official version has been demonstrated to be completely wrong, by whatever evidence is available.

Be honest with me MID, how much time do you have instructing 300 hour pilots, and in what maneuvers do you instruct?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 10 March 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

The 'official' version of the conspiracy is that 19 arabs with box cutters hijacked commercial airliners and crashed them into buildings, with one coming up a bit short in Shanksville PA.

That official version has been demonstrated to be completely wrong, by whatever evidence is available.

It has been more than 10 years since the 9/11 attacks and yet, not one shred of evidence has been presented the proved a government conspiracy.  The 9/11 folks tend to misinterpret messages and get the factrs wrong.

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

You might not be keeping up with what's happening in the civilian aviation industry, but the NTSB recommended, and it appears the FAA will adopt a new rule that requires applicants for first time Part 121 flying jobs have a minimum of 1500 hours, up from 1200 I think.

And you would have me believe that a 300 hour rookie with a bad reputation is able to assume control of an airplane, by way of box cutters    , that he has never ever flown in his life, and fly that airplane at airspeeds mostly on or above the redline, and perform a maneuver that USAF pilots must be trained for?

Really Sky.  I might have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.