Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Q24

9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

1,812 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Cz

Why don't we BOTH man up and get to the bottom of this?

I trust you are far more skilled at retrieving the post in question than I am.

I'm not the one who has a problem interpreting what MID meant, whereas you apparently do have that problem, or, as I have previously speculated, are just doing so on purpose.

So go ahead... find the post... post it. I can wait.

Let's put the post up, act like adults, and have a rational public discussion?

Sure... you can start by actually posting some kind of rational verifiable evidence to back up ANYTHING you have claimed.

Since we all know you can't and won't, why don't you stop with the hypocrisy of asking for "adult behavior" and "rationality" when you're the one who has publicly refused such requests in the past?

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sky

Are you claiming that your approach at Sacramento involved rates of descent in the 4500FPM range?

Nope, but after I leveled out during the bank, my wing tip was only 10 feet above the ground, which I held until I rolled out on final and landed. In this video, what is the sink rate of the C-17 during this approach?

Let's take a trip in another aircraft.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Cz

Why don't we BOTH man up and get to the bottom of this?

I trust you are far more skilled at retrieving the post in question than I am.

Let's put the post up, act like adults, and have a rational public discussion?

A rational public discussion...about the irrational?

There's something behind this, I'm sure.

I suppose you think it's fun.

We hve several people of recent date who insist upon tlking in circles about nothing at all. 4500 foot per minute descent rates arrested with a 4 g eyeballs down squashing???

Impossible?

Somebody's got to be willing to argue more???

:blush:

one day, you'll all stop the pseudo-expertise claims and state your real point.

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In this case, transition to level flight PRECISELY at ground level, and at some airspeed apparently greater than the Vmo of the aircraft. And a lousy pilot to boot.

Apparently, the terrorist made it to the Pentagon and it is clearly evident in the data that American 77 wasn't flown by a professional pilot nor flown under remote control.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I know you guys hate to visit PFT, but it's there, complete with relevant algebraic equations.

You place too much on P4T, the folks who just can't seem to get it right. Just ask them what happened to Barbara Olson and see what they say.

My Link

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cz

No sir, YOU are having far more issues with what MID said (or didn't say) than I am. I found it amusing at the time and still do. You and Boo are the ones making the big deal out of it.

For me, I just find it an interesting insight, and a funny comment at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

With all due respect sir, you've already tricked me once with one of your "simulations", so I will pass on your nonsensical claims regarding your approach at SMF. Wingtip 10 feet off the ground? Who are you? Walter Mitty? :w00t:

MID

From the beginning sir, I have noted that the maneuver is NOT NECESSARILY impossible.

What I HAVE SAID is that, all things considered, the maneuver is VERY HIGHLY improbable. You know, experience level and flying ability of the pilot as reported in the official narrative, etc etc. And I say that based upon my experience of 40 years of flying including instructing 300 hour pilots.

It's hard to tell by your post above if you acknowledge the 4500 FPM required by the official narrative, or if you dispute that. It is also hard to tell if you acknowledge OR NOT the G required to arrest that rate of descent. It is also curious that neither you nor Boo nor Cz are willing to reproduce the post that causes them so much anxiety.

As for the G force, it's not so much that eyeball crushing effect that you talk about. On a practical level, it is that arm-restraining effect that Hani would have experienced there in his brand new Boeing, making his "judicious use of trim" that much more difficult and improbable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boo

If you are so confident about what MID posted last month, why don't you present it here?

I'm not mocking anybody Boo. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and maybe "mocking" is too?

Alright, since you are too lazy to go back in an effort to support your position about what you claim he said, I'll retrieve the post in question to prove my point.

Cz

No sir, YOU are having far more issues with what MID said (or didn't say) than I am. I found it amusing at the time and still do. You and Boo are the ones making the big deal out of it.

For me, I just find it an interesting insight, and a funny comment at the time.

As stated previously, the only funny thing about this is that even after being corrected multiple times you are still attributing a false position to MID and mocking that position.

MID

*snip*

It is also curious that neither you nor Boo nor Cz are willing to reproduce the post that causes them so much anxiety.

*snip*

I'm fairly sure that this is just a manipulative effort on your part to either have someone else do the leg work or the hope that we will just drop the point altogether. I don't mind doing the leg work on this, it is easy to track down.

What is curious to me is that you couldn't be bothered to go back and double check on your own to confirm whether or not your claims about MID's statements were accurate. Or better yet, perhaps even asking MID if that is what he intended to mean. Ever consider that? Never mind the fact that MID has repeatedly stated since then that he does not consider the maneuver to be superhuman... in his original post he makes this quite clear as well.

Here was the original set of posts which led to your dishonest portrayal of MID's position:

MID

Flying into the towers would be fairly easy IMO, though a sim instructor out in Arizona somewhere (737 type) had a hard time hitting the tower at the high indicated airspeeds reported in the official accounts. He encountered some sort of induced Dutch Roll.

As for the Pentagon, it was not a 360 according to the official accounts, it was a 270, begun at 7000 feet overhead the target. Assuming for the sake of discussion that he used standard rate turn, that would require less than 2 minutes. I round up to 2 minutes for discussion. That works out to about 3500FPM for the entire maneuver.

I did crop dusting in airplanes for 10 years, and I'm still active in flight instructing after all these years. For my more advanced students I introduce them to low level flight and crop dusting turns. Very few people are comfortable getting close to the ground at high speeds. Most must be forced to get within 50 of the ground.

According to the official narrative, Hani had to complete the overhead portion, then transition for the last few seconds (350knots we are told) to terrain-following flight to descend into the "bowl" in which the Pentagon sits. He had to follow that terrain so closely that the airplane was perfectly centered on the target. The tail was not too high, the cowlings were not too low. In short, an absolutely perfect threading of the needle.

All this by a lousy pilot, if we are to believe his instructors, flying in a transport category aircraft at speeds at least twice as fast as he had ever flown in his short career.

I simply do not believe it could be done. Transitioning to landing out of a 600FPM descent is hard for most folks. Transitioning to almost 0 from 3500FPM? No ****ing way.

Ah, Babe, but I think there's something we're leaving out of the equation!

I understand what you're saying, and I'll say this:

I couldn't have done it.

Why?

I'm not saying I couldn't have exeuted a 270, or a 360, in a couple minutes at 3500 FPM down and slapped into a building at 500 KTS.

What I'm saying is, WHY WOULD I???

Threin lies the issue:

Anyone with nominal pilot training could, and they did.

Why:

Religious fanaticism. Allah was waiting, with 77 virgins, if you killed the infidels! And yourself of course, as a martyr for the cause....but that's the thing.

You, nor I, would be inclined to do such a thing, or to fly 150 people in a loaded 767 into a building, but these freaks were, and that's precicely why they did!

It's not am mystery. People do this kind of crap. We can't imagine it. We can't even come close, but they do!

Personally, I think airplanes are extensions of God's own hand, and I cannot imagine abusing one like that. But these Islamic yahoos can, could, and did!

That's why this crap happened.

It's not worth talking about flying skills, or the impossibility of the maneuvers. None of them were, especially with ALLAH and a lifetime's conditioning, and basic flight training in their pockets.

Who needed to know how to bleed speed, drop the gear and flaps, and execute a nice gentle stall onto the ground?

None of 'em!

I think that's the bottom line here, and what I've said may times regarding this sort of discussion:

Any kook could've done it, and kooks did do it!

:yes:

Now do us all a favor and try reading this again. Make an effort to understand what MID is actually saying here. I've spelled it out before, so it should not be that difficult for anyone to understand; especially someone who was supposedly an English major.

After you've re-read and actually understood, I trust you'll drop these ridiculous antics you've latched onto. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

So my point all along has been that MID interjected religious fanaticism into the conversations, not I. And that raises the question of what motivated, what inspired, MID to make such a statement? I don't know, and don't really care what caused him to make the statement, but he did.

As an atheist, I find it funny, but fairly typical in this post 911 United States to read such a statement. On a non-aviation subject, I heard a very similar remark from a wonderful retired judge who I have known since childhood. He too had accepted that muslims somehow have these extraordinary powers or abilities, and blamed certain events on the religious preferences of the supposed perpetrators.

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? Maybe they've been watching too much "24"? I don't know, but it is interesting behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically you still don't get it. Maybe it would help if some of this was presented with bullet points?

  • MID was not suggesting that religious fanaticism bestows superhuman powers or extraordinary abilities.
  • MID did not interject religious fanaticism into the conversation.
  • Religious fanaticism is inherently present in the conversation because that is what inspired the attackers.

The point is not that MID made mention of the zealots before you did. The point is that you twisted the meaning, and therefore the intention, of MID's statements; with the expressed purpose of mocking that twisted meaning.

You claim now that it was merely humorous. You suggest that it was lighthearted. I suggest that you are backpedaling.

You were pointing at a statement which you claim was made by MID and laughing at it because in your opinion the statement was stupid. This is not lighthearted. Moreover, it wasn't MID's statement in the first place; it was a statement of your own invention.

Here's a zinger -- I agree with you that the statement you invented is ridiculous and worthy of mocking. Had MID actually made the statement, I'd have no problem with anyone mocking the statement. The statement is completely idiotic.

But let's be real clear. This idiotic statement that we are now both pointing at and calling ridiculous is your invention, not MID's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the bullet points helped your ability to comprehend, but apparently it did not.

In MID's post above, look at the two words just before he talks about Allah and 77 virgins. (I thought it was 72). See those words Boo? MID typed them. Here they are without bullet points: "Religious fanaticism."

That makes your second bullet point statement wrong.

As I've already noted, WE ALL agree with your third bullet point. Indeed, religious fanaticism of the muslim variety is the central theme of the Official Conspiracy Theory. That religious fanaticism of the jewish variety manifested in Manhattan that day with dancing Israelis is NOT beside the point..... :o

Perhaps you should get out your best dictionary and look up these words: suggestive, implied, inferred.

Thanks to your doing the legwork here Boo, the record reflects that MID, not I, interjected the term "religious fanaticism" into the conversation regarding the attack on the Pentagon. You and Cz and MID can rationalize that anyway that suits your purposes, but such rationalization in no way contributes to intellectual honesty.

I played on his words, and that is anybody's right. If he wishes to retract his statement, I fully respect his doing that. Otherwise the words stand, and they various ideas those words and their useage suggest. And really, it's no big deal.

I think you guys are sensitive and anxious about this extremely trivial thing because you have chosen to defend what is, at its heart, a lie and deception. Having done the same thing myself for the better part of 4 years, I sympathize with you, but you have made your bed. Defending a boat full of lies is very frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect sir, you've already tricked me once with one of your "simulations", so I will pass on your nonsensical claims regarding your approach at SMF. Wingtip 10 feet off the ground? Who are you? Walter Mitty? :w00t:

The simulation was no trick, but to make a point, and considering that I was already aligned with the end of the runway when I initiated the turn from downwind to final, was the reason why I had to lose altitude quickly and as a pilot you would have known why I had to do so.

The aircraft that I was flying was a Piper Arrow II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Babe, you talk a lot and say virtually nothing.

You have taken the "religious fanaticism" portion of MID's post and purposely misinterpreted it to mean something that magically provides a skill, whereas in the actual context of how MID used the phrase, it is something that provides the motivation, the desire, the impetus, the drive to commit the atrocities committed that day.

Someone who actually was an English Major would be able to understand that distinction, regardless of what their ideological or religious viewpoints are, yet you make this egregious error.

I say you're a liar and that you're doing this on purpose in some ludicrous attempt to deflect from the fact that you have NOTHING to back up your pitiful excuses for opinions on what actually happened.

You have become nothing but a colossal waste of time and bandwidth.

Good day.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the bullet points helped your ability to comprehend, but apparently it did not.

Another attempt to mock?

In MID's post above, look at the two words just before he talks about Allah and 77 virgins. (I thought it was 72). See those words Boo? MID typed them. Here they are without bullet points: "Religious fanaticism."

That makes your second bullet point statement wrong.

As I've already noted, WE ALL agree with your third bullet point. Indeed, religious fanaticism of the muslim variety is the central theme of the Official Conspiracy Theory. That religious fanaticism of the jewish variety manifested in Manhattan that day with dancing Israelis is NOT beside the point..... :o

How does one interject something that is already inherently present?

Don't worry about answering. It was a rhetorical question.

I agree with Cz's assessment. As he has stated, I also think that you are a liar and that you purposely misinterpreted MID's statement. Further, I contend that you did so in an effort to ridicule, and that you are too spineless to admit it even though it is blatantly obvious.

I think you guys are sensitive and anxious about this extremely trivial thing because you have chosen to defend what is, at its heart, a lie and deception. Having done the same thing myself for the better part of 4 years, I sympathize with you, but you have made your bed. Defending a boat full of lies is very frustrating.

The only thing that bothers me in this particular line of discussion is your treatment of MID. If there was a legitimate reason to ridicule something he had said, I'd not be bothered in the least. If he had actually said what you suggest he said, I'd say "Have at it. Ridicule away."

But he didn't say what you suggest he said; and you still refuse to acknowledge that very simple fact.

At this point it has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or anyone's thoughts about 9/11. It has to do with your honesty and your integrity. Do you have any? Are you capable of "manning up?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Another attempt to mock?

How does one interject something that is already inherently present?

Don't worry about answering. It was a rhetorical question.

I agree with Cz's assessment. As he has stated, I also think that you are a liar and that you purposely misinterpreted MID's statement. Further, I contend that you did so in an effort to ridicule, and that you are too spineless to admit it even though it is blatantly obvious.

The only thing that bothers me in this particular line of discussion is your treatment of MID. If there was a legitimate reason to ridicule something he had said, I'd not be bothered in the least. If he had actually said what you suggest he said, I'd say "Have at it. Ridicule away."

But he didn't say what you suggest he said; and you still refuse to acknowledge that very simple fact.

At this point it has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or anyone's thoughts about 9/11. It has to do with your honesty and your integrity. Do you have any? Are you capable of "manning up?"

G'day Cz.

Boo

One interjects a topic with words. Typed in this case, or spoken in the real world.

We were talking about, as pilots, the finer points of how one might accomplish the Hani maneuver. While it is true that religious fanaticism permeates the entire theme of 911, during the conversation with MID I was not thinking of that subject. It had not entered my mind. I was discussing flying, nothing more, and we had been posting back & forth for several posts.

HE brought up the religious angle. Yes, I ridiculed his statement. Could not resist it. When one makes a silly statement, one should expect to be called on it.

Man up? I have no problem with that sir, and have done it many times in the real world and on the internet. Please show me how my statements were in error, and I'll be happy to admit my error.

The only thing that bothers you is my treatment of MID? I have not mistreated MID. I would not know him if he walked in the door. All I know is he is some sort of pilot, that we agree on the matter of contrails and such, and that we disagree on the facts regarding the attack at the Pentagon. I have not disrespected him. Yes, I laughed at his statement about religious influence on Hani's purported motives, but what's wrong with that? I thought that was the purpose of :w00t:

What you guys don't want to man up about is that the Official Conspiracy Theory cannot be proved. It must be accepted as an act of faith based upon an elaborate, though obviously inaccurate, government press release and coverup.

From Shanksville to Manhattan to the Pentagon, the story is replete with inaccuracies and deception, but you choose to soldier on, attempting to give credence to government propaganda in the craziest tradition of Goebbels and Orwell. It is not malicious on your part, and it's really none of my business, but this is a public forum.

Observing human behavior is a hobby of mine, and I enjoy discussion and spirited disagreement. I suspect MID and everybody else will do just fine. :)

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HE brought up the religious angle. Yes, I ridiculed his statement. Could not resist it. When one makes a silly statement, one should expect to be called on it.

Man up? I have no problem with that sir, and have done it many times in the real world and on the internet. Please show me how my statements were in error, and I'll be happy to admit my error.

I've already shown how your statements were in error and you still refuse to acknowledge it.

MID said nothing that was "silly". The "silly" part was your invention. The only thing you are ridiculing is your own, and by extension, yourself. You keep attempting to sidestep from that. Whether you choose to take responsibility for it or not, it does not change the fact that you intentionally misinterpreted MID's commentary and twisted it into something that it wasn't.

I'm not surprised though.

Dishonest debating tactics like this appear to be one of the hallmarks of most 9/11 conspiracy theorists that I've encountered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What you guys don't want to man up about is that the Official Conspiracy Theory cannot be proved.

Well, can the 9/11 conspiracy folks account for the passengers and crew of American 77 and its airframe?

You continue to ignore the fact that the operator of American 77 has already confirmed that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon. The debris at the Pentagon are those from a B-757, and it is ridicules to think that trucks are going to dump B-757 engine parts, landing gears, and other pieces of aircraft wreckage during rescue operations. Why don't you tell us what happened to Barbara Olson?

What it is, you are deliberately overlooking the evidence because you are not interested in the evidence.

It must be accepted as an act of faith based upon an elaborate, though obviously inaccurate, government press release and coverup.

Serious questions have surfaced regarding your aeronautical comments, which captured the attention of other pilots as well. First question; Are you a pilot?

Next questions;

* Were you the person who'd claim that United 93 landed in Cleveland?

* Were you the person who claimed that no aircraft crashed at Shanksville despite the fact that the coroner you used as a reference has confirmed the crash of an aircraft and the recovery of bodies, which were confirmed as passengers and crew from United 93?

* Did you suggest that explosives brought down the light poles outside the Pentagon?

* Did you claim that 4 Gs were pulled during the maneuver of American 77?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

We already know you lost the debate, no question about that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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 fool out of yourself by purposely misquoting someone else and then perpetuating that lie when shown that you are wrong is a sure sign that you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself as well as everyone else.

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.

Coming into a debate knowing full-well that you will be refusing to support anything you claim is a sure sign that you have no integrity and shouldn't be in this debate in the first place.

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. :lol:

That's fine, Babe... you just keep on laughing at your own stupid jokes.

Everyone else here now knows that you are incapable of participating in an honest debate.

In the end, the only joke here is you.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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?"

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. :lol:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :lol:

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: -

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! :lol:

I’m not getting into it further than that.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.