1810 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

MID, on 19 February 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

I think we all understand that different perspective.



ong ago, we discussed in detail kinetic energy.  100 tons of metal impcting  at 800 feet per second.  It's unimaginable almost,  how much energy is liberated there.

Ever read about a piece of straw being embedded in a tree trunk, having been propelled by tornadic winds, and never even being broken...simply penetrating the wood by a couple inches?  That kind of phenomenon you should think about...



A good pilot couldn't have done it (it just doesn't fit the mindset...).
And you are of course an experienced heavy-iron pilot and know what lousy and adequately trained to fly straight and level, or even to fly straight at all is?
Oh, and that 1% tolerance you speak of as if it means something.
Quantify that 1%.  1% of what?





How many do they have?
Where are they?
Have you asked?

You see, we understand the different perspective.
I do, at least.
There's something lacking in the total perspective's logical / rational modality.

Glad you mentioned that 1% MID.

By that I mean the alignment of the airplane, according to the official story and pictures provided here by Sky, relative to the building it supposedly struck.  Sky provided a picture with the outline of the airplane superimposed over the building at that magical moment it struck the building.

If the airplane had been a foot or 2 higher, part of the vertical tail would have missed, and ended up probably partially intact a few hundred feet beyond.  If it had been a foot or 2 lower, the engine cowlings would have struck the ground and left their marks.

The left-right alignment is also very close.  Considering the dimensions of the airplane and the building, it was a perfect strike, and I'm just guessing the actual strike alignment was within 1% of where it positively had to be.

Now I don't really care what other folks believe in.  I am always happy to agree to disagree, and can speak only for myself.

That said, I know very well that me and a handful of Boeing pilots are right in calling out the very high improbability of the Hani maneuver.

Further, kinetic energy or not, aluminum airframes will not penetrate through six walls, or whatever the number is, and leave a perfect exit hole as we are told to believe.

Wrecking balls and hammers are not made out of aluminum for a very good reason--aluminum is far too soft and light a metal to act in that capacity.  Maybe a jeweler's small hammer, but not something to crush concrete with.

But a man is entitled, if he wishes to, to believe any group of pathological liars he sees fit.  I'll pass.

[Czero 101]

Babe Ruth, on 20 February 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

* unsupported opinion snipped for brevity *

I think this pretty much sums up every argument Babe Ruth has brought up to date.

Quote

Argument from Incredulity / Lack of Imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

    P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
    It is obvious that P is true (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false); therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

[SOURCE]



Cz

[skyeagle409]

[quote name='Babe Ruth' timestamp='1329747894' post='4209525']
By that I mean the alignment of the airplane, according to the official story and pictures provided here by Sky, relative to the building it supposedly struck.  Sky provided a picture with the outline of the airplane superimposed over the building at that magical moment it struck the building.

If the airplane had been a foot or 2 higher, part of the vertical tail would have missed, and ended up probably partially intact a few hundred feet beyond.  If it had been a foot or 2 lower, the engine cowlings would have struck the ground and left their marks.[/quote]

Are you now denying that an aircraft stuck the Pentagon?

[quote]That said, I know very well that me and a handful of Boeing pilots are right in calling out the very high improbability of the Hani maneuver.[/quote]

Yet, that foreign terrorist flew American 77 into the Pentagon, which once again, was confirmed by American Airlines.

[quote]Further, kinetic energy or not, aluminum airframes will not penetrate through six walls, or whatever the number is, and leave a perfect exit hole as we are told to believe. Wrecking balls and hammers are not made out of aluminum for a very good reason--aluminum is far too soft and light a metal to act in that capacity.  Maybe a jeweler's small hammer, but not something to crush concrete with.

Are you implying that this small jet was made of iron and steel? You also notice that wreckage goes right through the building, and later, a portion of the building collapsed, which is exactly what happened at the Pentagon when a portion of the building later collapsed after it was struck by American 77.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 February 2012 - 07:55 PM.

[booNyzarC]

Sky...  the portion of that video showing a plane is fake...

The building did collapse, but no plane.

[skyeagle409]

booNyzarC, on 20 February 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

Sky...  the portion of that video showing a plane is fake...

The building did collapse, but no plane.

That part is a simulation of what happened.The building in the video is a steel-structured building that I posted some time ago.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 February 2012 - 08:11 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 20 February 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

Further, kinetic energy or not, aluminum airframes will not penetrate through six walls, or whatever the number is, and leave a perfect exit hole as we are told to believe.

You might want to look at the landing gear. It is clearly evidence the hole from punched out from the inside.

Quote

Wrecking balls and hammers are not made out of aluminum for a very good reason--aluminum is far too soft and light a metal to act in that capacity.  Maybe a jeweler's small hammer, but not something to crush concrete with.

Are you implying that this aircraft is made out of iron?



For the record, you are claiming that no aircraft struck the Pentagon?

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 February 2012 - 08:51 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

We have already discussed that in your picture of the exit hole, there is no landing gear to be seen.  Where is it?

We have already discussed that the wall at Teterboro you show, and the wall at the Pentagon are not constructed in the same way.  I think we have already discussed that the several 'rings' within the Pentagon constitute 4 or 6 walls, however you want to count it.

I must admit Sky, that your picture of the F-18 striking the building is persuasive.

That said, and I know already that you don't agree, the structural differences between a supersonic F-18 and a 757 are significant.

And I'm happy to admit, for the sake of discussion, that maybe a 757 could indeed penetrate through several rings of the Pentagon.

But that does not right all the other wrongs, such as the incredible maneuver by Hani, the absence of wreckage consistent with a 757, and the statements of several of the survivors who walked right through and saw nothing suggesting an airliner or passengers.

Edited by Babe Ruth, 20 February 2012 - 09:19 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 20 February 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

Sky

We have already discussed that in your picture of the exit hole, there is no landing gear to be seen.  Where is it?

I guess you missed pieces of the tire and other aircraft sections  in the photo at the punch out hole, but then again, you have been missing quite a few things lately.

Quote

We have already discussed that the wall at Teterboro you show, and the wall at the Pentagon are not constructed in the same way.

Doesn't matter. You made the claim the no aluminum airframe could penetrate such a wall, and yet, that small jet wasn't even at flying speed when it penetrated the wall, and additionally, that punch-out hole was not much thicker, yet the larger and heavier  B-757 was traveling at a high rate of speed when it blasted into the Pentagon. A smaller, B-25 penetrated the Empire State Building as well. And, remember, the B-25 was much slower and lighter and  not built as strong as a B-757, and yet , it penetrated that building as well, so what was that you were saying about no aluminum airframe can penetrate buildings?

.





What that means is your claim that no aluminum airframe can penetrate buildings has been proven false time after time.

Quote

  I think we have already discussed that the several 'rings' within the Pentagon constitute 4 or 6 walls, however you want to count it.

Are you claiming that no aircraft struck the Pentagon?

Quote

I must admit Sky, that your picture of the F-18 striking the building is persuasive.

That was just a simulation to show what happened at the Pentagon.. The B-757 penetrated through the Pentagon and eventually punched out a hole

Quote

That said, and I know already that you don't agree, the structural differences between a supersonic F-18 and a 757 are significant.

You have to remember that the structural components of a B-757 is much heavier and stronger than those of a FA-18.

Quote

And I'm happy to admit, for the sake of discussion, that maybe a 757 could indeed penetrate through several rings of the Pentagon.

What did Ameircan Airlines have to say about American 77 striking the Pentagon?

Quote

But that does not right all the other wrongs, such as the incredible maneuver by Hani,...

Apparently, he carried out the maneuver and the result is what you see in the photos.

Quote

the absence of wreckage consistent with a 757,...

For the record, are you claiming that these parts are not consistent with a B-757?
















Apparently, that is the vertical stabilizer of a B-757 in the background.

Quote

Aand the statements of several of the survivors who walked right through and saw nothing suggesting an airliner or passengers.

On the contrary, many people saw American 77 strike the Pentagon and here are just a few.

Quote

ELAINE McCUSKER: "Traffic is normally slow right around the Pentagon [...]. I don't know what made me look up, but I did and I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating. My first thought was just 'No, no, no, no,' because it was obvious the plane  [...] was going to crash."

MIKE WALTER: "I saw this plane, a jet, an American Airline's jet [...it] slammed right into the Pentagon."

OMAR CAMPO: "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane. I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire."

RYAN JAMES: "When I looked up on my left [...] I see an American Airline plane. A silver plane. I can see 'AA' on the tail. I noticed that the landing gear were up. [...then] he hit full gas [...] and went straight in [to the Pentagon ...] I recognized it immediately as a passenger plane."

JAMES CISSELL: "Out of my peripheral vision I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board."

STEVE RISKUS: "I took these pictures seconds after the plane hit the pentagon. I was traveling on route 27 towards 395 when the plane crossed my path from the right about 100ft in front of me and crashed into the pentagon."

CBS News Special Report (CBS News transcripts, 9/11/01): Witness: The plane "clipped this pole over here. Hit this other pole and slammed right into the building. Huge explosion and then utter pandemonium, as you might imagine. I mean, everybody was screaming, 'Oh, my God.' [...] There was no doubt about it, it was American Airlines, slammed right into the building. And there was no doubt about it, whoever was piloting that plane was aiming for the Pentagon."

KOVR 13 News Tonight, KOVR-TV (Video Monitoring Services of America abstract, 09/11/01): "Interview - Jennifer Brower, witness, says she can't believe she saw an American Airlines plane crash into The Pentagon."

NBC News Special Report (NBC News Transcripts, 09/11/01): "Now, according to eyewitnesses, it was a American Airlines 757 that came sort of from the direction of National Airport."

MSNBC Special Report (transcript 091100cb.455, Sept 11, 2001): REP. BRIAN BAIRD (D), WASHINGTON: "We had been watching the coverage in New York  [...] Maybe a minute later, my staff was looking out the window and said, 'You know, there are not supposed to be any airplanes in the air, but there's an airplane.' She looked and said, 'Hey, everybody, there's an airplane out here. What's going on?' And the next minute, she looked out the window said, 'My God, it hit the Pentagon.'"

TV 6 Prime Time News WITI-TV (Video Monitoring Services of America abstract, 09/11/01) "Interview - Mike Walter, witness to Pentagon attack, saw American Airlines jet coming."

NBC Nightly News (Video Monitoring Services of America abstract, 09/11/01): "Interview - Unidentified woman, witness, says she say a commercial plane go right into the side of the Pentagon."

The Press Association Limited (09/11/01): "A woman eyewitness told CNN of the plane crashing into the Pentagon: 'A commercial plane came in. It was coming too fast, too low and then I saw the fire that came up after that.'"

The Washington Post (09/12/01, A1): "In the hazy hours that followed the attack, it was unclear which of four hijacked planes ended up where. But witnesses soon identified the aircraft that smashed into the Pentagon as an American flight, and then as Flight 77, which was unusually light on passengers this day."

The San Diego Union-Tribune (09/12/01, A3): "Several witnesses said the twin-engine Boeing 757 came in low and fast and may have clipped light stanchions before hitting near the ground level on the west side of the building."

The Guardian (09/12/01): "A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. 'It added power on its way in,' he said. 'The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.'"

Now, what was that you were saying about no parts of an aircraft at the Pentagon?

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 February 2012 - 11:54 PM.

[frenat]

Babe Ruth, on 20 February 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

We have already discussed that the wall at Teterboro you show, and the wall at the Pentagon are not constructed in the same way.  I think we have already discussed that the several 'rings' within the Pentagon constitute 4 or 6 walls, however you want to count it.

The outer three rings of the Pentagon are joined on the lower two floors.  There would only have been one exterior wall, multiple interior walls made of drywall and the final wall inside the ring with the exit hole
http://www.911myths....he_exit_ho.html

[MID]

Babe Ruth, on 20 February 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

That said, I know very well that me and a handful of Boeing pilots are right in calling out the very high improbability of the Hani maneuver.

And I know that alotg more than a handful of qualified ATPs  aren't in...

Quote

Wrecking balls and hammers are not made out of aluminum for a very good reason--aluminum is far too soft and light a metal to act in that capacity.  Maybe a jeweler's small hammer, but not something to crush concrete with.

But a man is entitled, if he wishes to, to believe any group of pathological liars he sees fit.  I'll pass.

man is also entitled not to understand.

he really good reason for wrecking balls and hammers not being made out of Al is becuase they are designed not to be propelled at 800 FPS toward their targets.  If they were, they could've been made out of polycarbonate!

KE again.  It's a real deal closer...

[Babe Ruth]

We must simply agree to disagree. For the sake of argument I'm happy to admit that it is possible for a 757 to have penetrated through the various drywall-composed rings there, but still we have the questions of the lack of debris, and that your argument seems to want to have it both ways--the 757 was so shattered that much of the aluminum was blown backwards onto the lawn, some in conveniently large pieces with legible paint jobs on them, and at the same time it retained enough structural integrity to leave a perfectly symmetrical exit hole. That seems intellectually dishonest to me.

But I understand how difficult it is to defend a fairy tale, for I've done the same thing from 2001 to about 2005.  'tis frustrating indeed because so many things don't make sense.

But looking at the Big Picture, we know that there was fraud and deception and coercion at Shanksville, fraud and deception at WTC. Then the question becomes: why should there NOT be fraud and deception at the Pentagon?  And of course there is.

MID, there might be some Boeing types claiming Hani's maneuver is easy to do, but my bet is that NOT ONE of them would be willing to put his money where his mouth is in attempting to demonstrate it.  Not to a fatal ending, of course, but just to, say 100 feet off the ground.  We'll never know.

Perhaps they can become temporary muslims so that their flying skills could be improved?  Would Allah allow that?  

Edited by Babe Ruth, 21 February 2012 - 01:53 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 21 February 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

We must simply agree to disagree. For the sake of argument I'm happy to admit that it is possible for a 757 to have penetrated through the various drywall-composed rings there, but still we have the questions of the lack of debris, and that your argument seems to want to have it both ways--the 757 was so shattered that much of the aluminum was blown backwards onto the lawn, some in conveniently large pieces with legible paint jobs on them, and at the same time it retained enough structural integrity to leave a perfectly symmetrical exit hole. That seems intellectually dishonest to me.

Why wouldn't pieces of the wreckage be blown backwards?  You can determined that the hole was punched outward, not inward, and the thickness of the exit hole is not very thick at all.

Quote

But I understand how difficult it is to defend a fairy tale, for I've done the same thing from 2001 to about 2005.  'tis frustrating indeed because so many things don't make sense.

What doesn't make any sense are claims of the 9/11 folks. For an example, switched aircraft without accounting for the original flights nor victims of those flights and ignoring the reports from the operators of United 93, United 175, American 11, and American 77, and that is, their aircraft were hijacked and the crashed in New York City, Shanksville, and at the Pentagon.

Quote

But looking at the Big Picture, we know that there was fraud and deception and coercion at Shanksville, fraud and deception at WTC.

What do you mean, WE??? Those are simply empty words considering that none of the documented evidence does not fit what you are claiming.

Quote

Then the question becomes: why should there NOT be fraud and deception at the Pentagon?  And of course there is.

For the record, how about posting the evidence that backs what you are claiming. Simply talking of fraud and presenting no evidence to back up your argument when the true evidence has already proven you wrong beyond any doubt, isn't going to get you anywhere either. Taking a look back, you have supported Unted 93 landing at Cleveland, when in fact, you didn't bother to read the rest of the story, which painted a Delta flight, which was a B-767, and a KC-135, as aircraft the 9/11 folks confused as United 93. Then, you claim that aluminum airframes cannot smash through walls of buildings, yet historical records and photos have proven you wrong once again.

You brought up remarks from an air traffic controller in regards to the maneuver of American 77, yet the air controller you used as a reference has slammed back at the 9/11 folks for taking his remarks out of context. At no time did he state that American 77 was a military aircraft, and it should be of no surprise that he slammed the 9/11 crowd. You made another fatal mistake when you used a coroner as a reference, who later confirmed that United 93 did in fact, crash at Shanksville and that remains of the victims of that flight were recovered and identified, and you didn't bother to check the facts before you posted a reference to that coroner.

What it is, you tend to make claims, yet you have not posted any evidence to back up your claims, so basically speaking, your remarks lack substance, so is it any wonder that the 9/11 folks continue to make a mockery of themselves?

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 February 2012 - 03:13 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

If a certain part of the fuselage was blown backwards, as evidenced by the fuselage debris on the lawn, then that shows that the fuselage had lost its structural integrity sufficiently to have been propelled backwards, in pieces, on the lawn.  The fuselage was utterly ruptured, and while some of it mysteriously blew backwards, other parts maintained enough integrity, mass and inertia to penetrate a certain number of walls in the rings.

It cannot do both, it seems to me.

"WE"?  Sky, there are many many people who understand that deception was employed.  Many people are afraid to talk about it, but they understand that 3 modern buildings, 1 of which was not even struck by an airplane, don't just simply fall down whilst having parts of it ejected outwards several hundred feet.  And, they COMPLETELY understand how the government lies as a matter of practice, on almost any given topic.

Links are proof of nothing at all Sky.  Off topic here, but Andrew Breitbart just put 17 links to support his argument, and close examination showed them to be utterly misleading and inaccurate.

I would like to think that once rational adults have a working knowledge of the facts of any given case, deliberation can move on to a higher level.

You guys still claim that any old body could climb in a strange airplane and perform superhuman feats, but many of us know that is silly and basically irrational.

Having gone through it myself, I know that attempting to defend a lie can lead to irrational statements and claims.  Remember what your dad told you?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 21 February 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

If a certain part of the fuselage was blown backwards, as evidenced by the fuselage debris on the lawn, then that shows that the fuselage had lost its structural integrity sufficiently to have been propelled backwards, in pieces, on the lawn.  The fuselage was utterly ruptured, and while some of it mysteriously blew backwards, other parts maintained enough integrity, mass and inertia to penetrate a certain number of walls in the rings.

What you see on the lawn is not the whole fuselage, just parts with the main body, which continued into the Pentagon.

Quote

"WE"?  Sky, there are many many people who understand that deception was employed.  Many people are afraid to talk about it, but they understand that 3 modern buildings, 1 of which was not even struck by an airplane, don't just simply fall down whilst having parts of it ejected outwards several hundred feet.  And, they COMPLETELY understand how the government lies as a matter of practice, on almost any given topic.

Once again, you are ignoring the fact that American Airlines has confirmed the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon, and the fact that the crash wreckage are the remains of a B-757, which you denied despite the evidence.

Quote

Links are proof of nothing at all Sky.

In this case, it is, especially since the 9/11 conspiracy folks have nothing to dispute the evidence.

Quote

I would like to think that once rational adults have a working knowledge of the facts of any given case, deliberation can move on to a higher level.

How rational is it when someone claims that no aircraft struck the Pentagon despite the fact there are pieces of a B-757 spread outside and inside the Pentagon? I hope the 9/11 folks don't  think that the wreckage was trucked in.

Quote

You guys still claim that any old body could climb in a strange airplane and perform superhuman feats, but many of us know that is silly and basically irrational.

We have the evidence, not the 9/11 conspiracy folks who have a habit of getting the facts all wrong and still have yet to present any evidence to prove a government conspiracy.

Quote

Having gone through it myself, I know that attempting to defend a lie can lead to irrational statements and claims.  Remember what your dad told you?

Irrational statements have been flowiing from the 9/11 conspiracy folks on a continuing basis. After all, I wasn't the person who has claimed that an aluminum airframe cannot penetrate a wall of a building, or that a pod was attached in the exact location where the main landing gears and doors operate on a B-767.We are not the people who have been claiming that airliners were swticted in flight despite evidence to the contrary, and not account for the original airliners. We are not the folks who have claimed that no aircraft crashed at Shanksville despite the overwhelming evidence that Unted 93 had indeed, crashed at the location, and confirmed by the coroner you used as a reference..

We are not the folks who have claimed that undamaged lght poles were placed on the grounds of the Pentagon the night before the attack despite the fact there are damaged light poles near the Pentagon. What it is, the 9/11 folks are simply making things up as they go, which is why they have no evidence to present.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 February 2012 - 10:30 PM.

[MID]

Babe Ruth, on 21 February 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

We must simply agree to disagree. For the sake of argument I'm happy to admit that it is possible for a 757 to have penetrated through the various drywall-composed rings there, but still we have the questions of the lack of debris, and that your argument seems to want to have it both ways--the 757 was so shattered that much of the aluminum was blown backwards onto the lawn, some in conveniently large pieces with legible paint jobs on them, and at the same time it retained enough structural integrity to leave a perfectly symmetrical exit hole. That seems intellectually dishonest to me.

Well, agreeing to disagree is fine.
However, my argument has never stated that any but certain debris flew out onto the lawn.  
My argument does state the confirmed identities of the passengers and crew of AA77, recovered and mapped in specific places, with debris, inside the building.

It isn't intellectually dishonest not to consider the liberated energy of such a collission.  I'd say it ignores intellectual pursuits in favor of a lazier way of perceiving things.

Quote

But I understand how difficult it is to defend a fairy tale, for I've done the same thing from 2001 to about 2005.  'tis frustrating indeed because so many things don't make sense.

Understanding why they don't make sense to you could bne a key to understanding why they do actually make sense in the light of physical principals.
But agiin, I completely understand people's general reticence to accept the actual facts of 9-11-01.

!

Quote

But looking at the Big Picture, we know that there was fraud and deception and coercion at Shanksville, fraud and deception at WTC. Then the question becomes: why should there NOT be fraud and deception at the Pentagon?  And of course there is.

In looking at the "big picture" that you paint in the above small paragraph, it seems apparent that you have a huge burden on your hands.
You certainly may make a statement as you have, but--

It will require you to provide some meager substantiation for the contentions made.


Deception and coersion at Shanksville.
Fraud and deception at WTC.
And then of course, since you accept the unproven and unprovable in those two scenarios, you extend the illusion into the pentagon, and then state, "And of course there is..."  as if there's a shred of anything to substantiate it anywhere.

You're certainly allowed.  I can't object, but it really rather renders the conversation somehwhat irrelevant.

It's speculative musing, not argumentation of fact-based material.

Quote

MID, there might be some Boeing types claiming Hani's maneuver is easy to do, but my bet is that NOT ONE of them would be willing to put his money where his mouth is in attempting to demonstrate it.  Not to a fatal ending, of course, but just to, say 100 feet off the ground.  We'll never know.

Perhaps they can become temporary muslims so that their flying skills could be improved?  Would Allah allow that?  

As a pilot, I don't claim that Hani's maneuver was "easy" to do.
I don't think any of those nut-cases that day had an easy time flying their airplane at cruise power into a building facade, knowing full well that their lives would be ending in a flash in a moment or two.
What I claim is that basic airmanship, straight and level flight, turns...even if semi-coordinated, push the throttles forward to speed up, point the nose at that thing over there, hold it somewhat steady,  and scream alot...isn't necessarily technically difficult.

It didn't take an ATP to be able to do it...any of it.
That's all.

Edited by MID, 22 February 2012 - 12:14 AM.