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

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.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_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.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

globalhawkaa.jpg

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.

missile.jpgagm-109.jpg

pole1a.jpg

pole1b.jpg

pole3.jpg

pole4.jpg

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.

pentagon-moving.gif

And, this is the airframe that was American 77.

My link

Edited by skyeagle409

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :lol: , 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. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Perhaps. Never heard of such a thing...

That's why I asked you to define it (..I knew you couldn't).

:wacko:

I asked you to produce a definition....other than that which you've formulated in yhour own mind.

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.

Yep.

Don't think there was ever much doubt about who they were either...but wait!

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.

Oh...OK. Well, at least your honest about your feelings.

That rather settles the whole issue in my book.

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

And that's relevant to your position how?

Not at all, of course... :geek:

I'm not sure if you know how silly such a question really is.

Thanks for the imnput Babe...

maybe now go and convince others of your position, and of your flight experience, and just how relevant asking me about a 300 hour pilot is to your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. think.

Do you really think that a terrorist is going to abide by FAA regulations? The 1500-hour requirement is for an ATP rating, which has nothing to do with the terrorist flying American 77 into the Pentagon. You are confusing flight time requirements and type ratings.

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 :lol: , 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?

Yep,the 300-hour rookie was flying American 77, and remember, you only have to look at the altitude data to see that a professional pilot wasn't flying American 77 in the minutes prior to striking the Pentagon.

In regards to exceeding red-line airspeeds, we have had airliners that have exceeded their red-line airspeeds and survived and I have posted examples as well. Remember, airliners exceeding red-line airspeeds is nothing new, and it is clearly evident that an experienced military pilot wasn't flying the aircraft.according to the altitude data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're a quick learner MID, and an honest debater. ;)

The OCT is the theory you defend, basically beginning with the 19 arabs armed with box cutters. You know it well, but prefer to play silly. And I suspect your dodge on the flight instruction question I posed to you means you are NOT a flight instructor, and just a bit insecure about what is actually involved in transitioning from 4500FPM down to terrain-following flight.

And that explains why you are utterly clueless about the flying skills of the average 300 hour pilot, and how you are clueless about the difficulty that you and Sky are unable to perceive about the Hani Maneuver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're a quick learner MID, and an honest debater. ;)

The OCT is the theory you defend, basically beginning with the 19 arabs armed with box cutters. You know it well, but prefer to play silly. And I suspect your dodge on the flight instruction question I posed to you means you are NOT a flight instructor, and just a bit insecure about what is actually involved in transitioning from 4500FPM down to terrain-following flight.

Ah!

OK.

I guess you're referring to the Official Investigative Investigation Results, then.

That becomes an Official Conspiracy Theory then.

OK. Got it.

However.

I am not, as you may have noted, spending all too much time defending that which is proven.

I would, however, maintain that you, as well as several others on several threads, have spent alot of time defending that which must at least be attempted to substantiate and defend---their claims that it's all a sham.

this is something that you are indeed required to substantiate. I have no requirement to defend the proven.

You have a requirement to defend and prove your contention.

It's a fundamental CT mistake in such things. I have no problems with it. It's the nature of the beast, and one of the reasons why it gets rtoo boring after a while. It's always the same.

And that explains why you are utterly clueless about the flying skills of the average 300 hour pilot, and how you are clueless about the difficulty that you and Sky are unable to perceive about the Hani Maneuver.

:lol:

I am rather certain I had 300 hours (not even logged in a book!) before you were born (today's illegal was common then...until the 1960s!). Don't be insulting and ridiculous. You know nothing about me.

I can remember having completed commercial and half of instrument before I got a private certificate, and I was still a kid (didn't drive a car--WANT ME TO PROVE THAT??? :lol: (I'll try to get you a picture of me on my bycile riding to the airport so I could fly a plane when I was 15! ). Add another 4-5 decades to that...and maybe you can see that you might as well be howling at the Moon.

The difficulty that I and Sky are having with the "difficulty" of the Hani maneuver is the difficulty that you, in your vast experience aloft, many instructing hours, and crop dusting at low altitude (AND VAST GROUND EFFECT EXPERIENCE), combined with your predilection not to trust authority, as well as well as your somewhat natural dis-belief in what occurred on 9-11-01, ARE HAVING WITH THE MUNDANE AND SIMPLE.

You keep speaking of this 4500 FPM dive that was arested with a 4 g pull out.

baloney.

He flew a descending turn at < 1900 FPM for some minutes, followed by some spurious, relatively low g jerkiness as he lined up and his final 4-5 minutes were spent at around a 1600 FPM descent (lets re-iterate, that's a very normal thing for someone doing what he was doing...it's not rocket science, and it's not advanced technique to jerk a yoke a bit while preparing to die), as he pointed into the building.

His sfinal 4 minutes were at no more than 200 FPS down. And rthere's nothing on an FDR to indicate that he arrested it at all (your maneuver would've seen himclimbing over the building at 3000 FPM .

He aimed at the building facade he could see, pushed the levers, and said "See Ya!"

It doesn't get any more complex.

We're taliking whoop...way up pitch, 4 gs...people screaming, some pasing out, and ascending up over the Pentagon at a LARGE ANGLE. It would've been a pull up that resulted in them climbing over the building, at a pretty goo angle up, arresting 75 FPS down to 53 FPA up...in a matter of a short time.

mo such thing happened.

c'MON.

nO ONE, AND NO DATA SHOWED ANY SUCH THING HAPPENING. HE LEVELED A BIT, POINTED THE PLANE, AND MASHED INTO THE BUILDING, DYING AND KLILLING EVERYONE ON BOARD AND MANY INSIDE THAT ILL-FATED BUILDING!

Sorry to holler, but it's just that simple...despite your imminent qualifications. It is that simple.

Not advanced maneuvering. Insane stupid, impossible to conceive (maybe not for you) manueuvering. But completely possible...for a nutcase!

4 g's my rear.

If he did level out in one second it was only 2.3 gs. If he did it in two, it was a wee bit more than one.

He did no such pull out, ever. he flew like an idiot, but he didn't stress the airplane beyond design loads (where you got 4 gs I'll never know...Cristmas...i have give a cESSNA 150 Aerobat 5.5!)

Humans don't do that stuff Babe!

Uh...I bet...

You don't actually believe that flight 93 was craShed into a field in Shanksville PA, and was vaporized (by perfectly natural reasons) because of the actions of heroic people on board, who willingly gave their lives to save others...do you?

just wondering.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you're right about one thing MID--I am pompous in my posting. :rolleyes:

Little bit of trivia for such an old man as yourself, flying with the Wright Brothers and all that--it's not ILLEGAL to NOT log your flying time.

Your statement about 'several minutes' of descending turns at 1900FPM strongly suggests exactly why you only got halfway to the instrument rating. Can you remember that old thing called a "standard rate turn" and what it means? Judging from your post, you do not.

To refresh your memory, at standard rate it takes 2 minutes to complete a 360 degree turn. The government, not I, says that Hani did a 270 degree turn descending, so the whole maneuver would have taken 90 seconds, ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT STORY, not mine. That increases the rate of descent required even more. Where you come up with 1900FPM I have no clue, but the more you post the more it appears you might be challenged in the math skills area, especially considering you only made it half way to the instrument rating. :wacko:

I understand sir, HOLLERING is the corner into which you have painted yourself, by choosing to defend an outrageous lie.

And you're right about 1 other thing MID--I don't know you and you don't know me, except what we learn about each other here through this cyber filter. You claim to be a pilot, having flown for nearly a century now, but you prefer to be very vague about your flying experiences, other than to note it was a long time ago and in a haphazard style. That part makes sense. I am assuming you did not fly in the military, for I've never met a military type here on the internet who is as vague and so into innuendo than yourself.

So in the end MID, we agree to disagree. We each consider the other to be a fraud. No problem here.

Halfway to the instrument. :P I'm sure you have an answer, but I wonder how one knows when he's halfway to a place he's never been? Maybe you made it halfway to medical school too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that explains why you are utterly clueless about the flying skills of the average 300 hour pilot, and how you are clueless about the difficulty that you and Sky are unable to perceive about the Hani Maneuver.

That maneuver was not complicated at all. Where did you get that idea? Student pilots are required to perform complicated manevuers, which are more precised before the FAA presents them with their Private license.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To refresh your memory, at standard rate it takes 2 minutes to complete a 360 degree turn. The government, not I, says that Hani did a 270 degree turn descending, so the whole maneuver would have taken 90 seconds, ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT STORY, not mine. That increases the rate of descent required even more.

According to the NTSB, he completed a turn of only 330 degrees, which is not even a full standard rate 2-minute turn of 360 degrees and it took him about 3 minutes to complete a turn of only 330 degrees, so where did you get your 4-g figure when his rate-of-turn was less than a standard rate turn? During the course of his turn, It took him 3 minutes to descend to around 2000 feet, so where did you get the idea that maneuver was outside the limitations for the airframe of a B-757? MID is correct, and you are incorrect by a wide margin.

Upon completion of his turn, he still had 30 seconds to align American 77 with the Pentagon and apply full power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that the limitations of the airplane were exceeded SKY. On the contrary, I said they were NOT exceeded, with the likely exception of airspeed and the probable exception of G forces.

You want to have things both ways Sky. You defend the official narrative as though it's gospel, and then you pick and choose which parts you like better and which parts you would rather not talk about.

But I understand. When one is attempting to defend a fairy tale, one must also resort to fraud, as you are doing with your silly statements that the maneuver was just a "ho-hum" maneuver that private pilot applicants practice on their own.

You have resorted to fraud and deception here Sky, beginning at least with your "simulation" of the F-18. I never trusted your veracity much before that incident, and especially do not now.

In claiming the maneuver is not difficult you make a fool of yourself, and you show to anybody that knows any better that you're fibbing.

There was no Boeing crashed at the Pentagon, and I suspect you know that very well. Effectively, you are desperate in defending the official fairy tale, and must therefore resort to 'simulation' and deception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that the limitations of the airplane were exceeded SKY. On the contrary, I said they were NOT exceeded, with the likely exception of airspeed and the probable exception of G forces.

Then, why did you bring up red-line in reference to the airframe of American 77?

You want to have things both ways Sky. You defend the official narrative as though it's gospel, and then you pick and choose which parts you like better and which parts you would rather not talk about.

Let's look at some facts. American Airlines, the operator of American 77, announced the loss if its aircraft at the Pentagon, and the FAA has since registered its registration number, that you do not seem to understand. Add to the fact that I have mentioned passengers and crew of American 77, and you do not seem to understand.the significance of that either, which brings up some serious questions about your own claims.

But I understand. When one is attempting to defend a fairy tale, one must also resort to fraud, as you are doing with your silly statements that the maneuver was just a "ho-hum" maneuver that private pilot applicants practice on their own.

Any pilot should have known that the maneuver was NOT the complicated at all. In fact, it was no more complicated than performing turns around a point in an aircraft during light to mild winds, a maneuver which I performed as a student pilot with less than 35 hours. The data shows that that the maneuver was very sloppy, but I guess you do not know how to read altitude data.

You have resorted to fraud and deception here Sky, beginning at least with your "simulation" of the F-18. I never trusted your veracity much before that incident, and especially do not now.

Since I posted that F-18 simulation, you can use that reference in regards to the fact that American 77 also smashed through the Pentagon as well, which is evident by internal photos of the Pentagon.

In claiming the maneuver is not difficult you make a fool of yourself, and you show to anybody that knows any better that you're fibbing.

How amusing when it has already been shown that the banking maneuver of American 77 was actually less than a standard rate turn and its rate of descent was not spectacular either.

There was no Boeing crashed at the Pentagon, and I suspect you know that very well.

Considering that only wreckage from a B-757 was recovered at the Pentagon, you are incorrect again.

Seriously, the nature of your comments seem to suggest that you are not a pilot at all. Another blunder you made was to bring up the 1500 hour reference in regards to ATP requirements, which had nothing to do with the terrorist pilot of American 77, since he had no intention of flying for the airlines, nor was he interested in learning how to land a B-757. After all, you DID write the following message.

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.

I concluded from your misstep that you are not a pilot at all. You have been making comments in regards to aviation matters that seem to indicate a lack of flying experience and aeronautical knowledge.

Effectively, you are desperate in defending the official fairy tale, and must therefore resort to 'simulation' and deception.

The only fairy tales around here have been told by you,and you must also rememeber, we didn't suggest that explosives were planted on the fallen light poles, but you did!

Now, what happen to the passengers and crew of American 77?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky, you are intellectually dishonest, and I will no longer reply to your dishonest posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky, you are intellectually dishonest, and I will no longer reply to your dishonest posts.

But I'm willing to bet you'll still spew your own dishonesties at the rest of us, right...?

Hypocrisy... look it up in the dictionary, Babe... :rolleyes:

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky, you are intellectually dishonest, and I will no longer reply to your dishonest posts.

Did you post the following message?

The government, not I, says that Hani did a 270 degree turn descending, so the whole maneuver would have taken 90 seconds,

The NTSB said 330 degrees in the report, which began at 9:34 AM, and impact was at 9:37:45 AM. The report says that the turn was completed at 2000 feet, and afterward, American 77 accelerated to 530 mph over the next thirty seconds, and with that information, how much time was devoted to the actual descending turn of American 77? It is right there in the NTSB report, so check it out if you don't know.

My link

Are you claiming that American Airlines did not report the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon? If so, then you should go here and listen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you're right about one thing MID--I am pompous in my posting. :rolleyes:

Little bit of trivia for such an old man as yourself, flying with the Wright Brothers and all that--it's not ILLEGAL to NOT log your flying time.

Your statement about 'several minutes' of descending turns at 1900FPM strongly suggests exactly why you only got halfway to the instrument rating. Can you remember that old thing called a "standard rate turn" and what it means? Judging from your post, you do not.

To refresh your memory, at standard rate it takes 2 minutes to complete a 360 degree turn. The government, not I, says that Hani did a 270 degree turn descending, so the whole maneuver would have taken 90 seconds, ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT STORY, not mine. That increases the rate of descent required even more. Where you come up with 1900FPM I have no clue, but the more you post the more it appears you might be challenged in the math skills area, especially considering you only made it half way to the instrument rating. :wacko:

I understand sir, HOLLERING is the corner into which you have painted yourself, by choosing to defend an outrageous lie.

And you're right about 1 other thing MID--I don't know you and you don't know me, except what we learn about each other here through this cyber filter. You claim to be a pilot, having flown for nearly a century now, but you prefer to be very vague about your flying experiences, other than to note it was a long time ago and in a haphazard style. That part makes sense. I am assuming you did not fly in the military, for I've never met a military type here on the internet who is as vague and so into innuendo than yourself.

So in the end MID, we agree to disagree. We each consider the other to be a fraud. No problem here.

Halfway to the instrument. :P I'm sure you have an answer, but I wonder how one knows when he's halfway to a place he's never been? Maybe you made it halfway to medical school too?

You are pompous, and an oppressive boor.

There are many more imprtant things in life than discussing flying with someone who obviously doesn't have the experience that I, or many others here do have, especially when it is discussing a CT's impressions of 9-11!

You've been defeated here, and your content is obviously reflective of that.

You post irrelevancies, and don't answer questions.

My experience aloft exceeds yours by thousands of hours.

Want proof?

Uh....I bet you do. And you propose this how?

You're now deteriorating any discussion beyond the point of nonsense.

Terrorists few airplanes into buildings on 9-11.

You didn't address your deepest feeling about 93, but I'm, sure we all know that you don't really think that plane went down in Shanksville because of the heroic and selfless actions of passengers aboard.

I babe, am not intersted in depating the un-debatable with you, or anyone else.

be as boorish and ridiculous as you want.

I don't really care. I cannot waste time perpetuating your lost argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why do you keep doing it MID?

Oh, NOW I get it! Your flying experience is so vast and your credentials so excellent that the only way you reference them is by innuendo. Not one word from you about which licenses you hold, not one word about any military experience, and not one word about any instructing you might have done. And refusal to answer specific questions regarding that. :lol:

I might be boorish and pompous, but I am not dishonest in what I've posted here.

Sky has demonstrated at least once that he presents dishonest pictures. "Once bitten, twice shy" is my reaction to that, though I had been suspicious prior.

Such tactics are necessary when one is defending a bright and shining fairy tale. The question becomes whether Sky is inherently dishonest in his postings, or has he simply been driven to that point by years of defending a fantasy?

I suspect the latter choice is most likely. While you and Cz are not as flagrant as Sky has been, and Cz has actually been very cordial at times, you're all in the same boat in defending a story that cannot be proven.

Defeated here? I didn't know it was a contest. What is the score, and when does the game end?

My observations make you very uncomfortable, and it's just that simple. As Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men" noted sir, you cannot HANDLE the truth, for a variety of reasons, all off topic.

Dishonest debate is never pretty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And refusal to answer specific questions regarding that. :lol:

We know of your refusal to answer questions surrounding the fate of the passengers and crew of American 77.

Sky has demonstrated at least once that he presents dishonest pictures. "Once bitten, twice shy" is my reaction to that, though I had been suspicious prior.

On the contrary, I used the simulation to make a point. After all, you were the person who've claimed that aluminun airframes could not penetrate buildings. Talk about dishonesty, you were also the person who posted that no aircraft crashed at Shanksville, and that American 77 did not crash at the Pentagon despite the overwhelming evidence. You also tried to mislead us with your false 4-g comments and a non-existent high descent rate in regards to American 77.

Such tactics are necessary when one is defending a bright and shining fairy tale.

We know that the CT folks are very good for pushing fairing tales in regards to the 9/11 attacks and I can use their own comments as proof when compared to the evidence. After all, you were the person who claimed that no "Boeing" crashed at the Pentagon when the eviidence points to the crash remains of a Boeing B-757.

The question becomes whether Sky is inherently dishonest in his postings, or has he simply been driven to that point by years of defending a fantasy?

Considering that you have yet to refute any of the facts surrounding Amercian 77 with evidence, then what more is there to say? I found it peculiar that you would actually try to con us into thinking that explosives could have brought down those light poles. How dishonest is that?!

As Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men" noted sir, you cannot HANDLE the truth, for a variety of reasons, all off topic. Dishonest debate is never pretty.

I already know that you cannot handle the truth, and don't forget that you were the person who referenced the coroner whose comments has trashed your post. It has been more than 10 years since the terrorist attacks and the 9/11 conspiracy folks have yet to present a shred of evidence of a government cover-up.

Edited by skyeagle409

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.