9/11 true or false !

[Gremlin]

Do what I do look for it as "the truth" is out there.

There's quite a lot of bulls*** out there too.

 

[Jam_Man]

Do what I do look for it as "the truth" is out there.

Have you looked into why there may be discrepancies in the black box reading or did you just find the first thing that met your previously formed opinion?

How come you are prepared to believe the blackbox when it comes to announcing a pilot couldnt make the turns he did, then say the blackbox wasnt even used?

Have you questioned why, if the plane wasnt crashed into the pentagon, where the plane ended up and what it was actually crashed into at 273 feet if it wasnt the Pentagon?

You raise the fact there is no video of the plane crashing, yet dont ask why there is no video of a missile.

You seem very keen to dismiss the official version and very keen to avoid questioning the conspiracies.

There's quite a lot of bulls*** out there too.

Just by looking today there is tons of it, some absolute garbage. People claiming no planes actually hit the WTC as well.

I saw the other day a guy claiming all the ISIS beheadings were hoaxed as well, some people just want a conspiracy for everything.

 

[londonblue]

Have you questioned why, if the plane wasnt crashed into the pentagon, where the plane ended up and what it was actually crashed into at 273 feet if it wasnt the Pentagon?

Soon we'll be told the Dambusters raid never happened because it's impossible to fly that low because a) it would disorientate the pilots, and b) the plane would fall apart.

 

[GBJ]

To me this is a complete red herring. Firstly, lets assume the flight test he failed was the absolute basic test. It probably wasn’t, but let’s give your theory the best chance of succeeding.

Firstly, it's not MY theory. It's these guys theory.... http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

My guessing is they've got enough flight experience to make an informed decision & theory.

The basic flight test would be to fly straight (i.e. maintain a heading with reference to a DI – direction indicator - to a level of, say, +/- 5 degrees) and level (i.e. maintain an altitude within say, +/-50’). Neither of these would be important when trying to hit a building. It doesn’t matter if he keeps losing his heading, he would just zig-zag his way there. He would have failed his flight test, but he would still have reached his target. The same is true of altitude.

Ok, I've read things that will testify to this being true, but it doesn't answer how he could have pulled off two very difficult manouvers, that experienced pilots would struggle with. Feel free to have a look what these ex-pilots had to say...http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

Obviously as a pilot, you will understand this extract more than most... "So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie".

There is also the “human” factor here. Let’s be honest, do you think he was taking his flight test seriously knowing that it made no difference if he passed or failed?

Probably yes, because he was trying to rent a plane at the time, but, for whatever reason (I can't remember) was told he'd have to take a test first. He failed that test & was refused rental of a plane.

Also, you don’t know that he got the pilot to do these supposedly amazing manoeuvres (which, based on your description, I pretty much replicated in a simulator when trying to land at Insbruck), and then took over afterwards.

No, no I don't know. But neither do you, or anyone else. It's all conjecture. It comes down to how you as an individual interprets or perceives what went on in that cockpit I guess. There is no concrete proof. The only things I've got to go on, is testimony of friends & family who've said there was no way he'd give his plane up, to a small guy armed with a box cutter.

The rest of your “factors” IMO are really just padding to try and make it seem more difficult. For example, turning off a transponder is as simple as flicking a switch. I would also argue that adrenalin would aid his performance, not hinder it.

That's your opinion. I believe all those physical factors would certainly have been present & made his job harder. Which again, is just an opinion.

Did you know that some Airline pilots actually use MS Flight Sim (or others – I believe MS have stopped producing their one) for training purposes? They don’t use just them of course, but they sometimes make use of them to learn the layout of unfamiliar airports so then they land there they don’t make a fool of themselves asking for directions when given taxi instructions. They also use them to get a feel for the local area around unfamiliar airports. I would say, although I can’t be certain (and nor can you the other way for that matter), that it is entirely possible that any hijacker could use a flight Sim to familiarise themselves with the areas they need.

Also, how do you know he didn't have a GPS on him? It's a pretty simple piece of equipment. So long as you've programmed a waypoint (in this case a building, probably by grid reference) all you then have to do is turn it on and press the "direct to" button.

Were these things readily available to the public in 2001? I certainly don't recall any handheld GPS type of equipment?

 

[Swiss Tony]

Do what I do look for it as "the truth" is out there.

Fishing again mrsblue,you are a card.

 

[GBJ]

Just by looking today there is tons of it, some absolute garbage. People claiming no planes actually hit the WTC as well.

I saw the other day a guy claiming all the ISIS beheadings were hoaxed as well, some people just want a conspiracy for everything.

Yes. Some of it is laughable & in a way, worrying.

That being said, as I mentioned previously, the reasons for invading Iraq in the first place are just as laughable. So whilst we have a good laugh at the conspiracy nuts & their tin foil hats, lets not forget that the majority of the population have never questioned the reasoning behind invading Iraq & Afghanistan. That's a conspiracy theory that nearly everyone has fallen for

 

[mrsblue]

United 93

The crash site was fully inspected before the FBI got heir hands on it,The early inspection found no aviation fuel trace,no bodies,no plane,nothing apart from tiny fragments and of course damning documents belonging to the hijackers.

After the FBI completed their search and investigation they discovered virtually the entire plane and most of the bodies which to this day has never been verified by anyone apart from the top table of Bush and partners.

 

[londonblue]

United 93

The crash site was fully inspected before the FBI got heir hands on it,The early inspection found no aviation fuel trace,no bodies,no plane,nothing apart from tiny fragments and of course damning documents belonging to the hijackers.

After the FBI completed their search and investigation they discovered virtually the entire plane and most of the bodies which to this day has never been verified by anyone apart from the top table of Bush and partners.

Still not answering any counter points I notice. Just spouting unverified rubbish with no source.

 

[londonblue]

Firstly, it's not MY theory. It's these guys theory.... http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

My guessing is they've got enough flight experience to make an informed decision & theory.



Ok, I've read things that will testify to this being true, but it doesn't answer how he could have pulled off two very difficult manouvers, that experienced pilots would struggle with. Feel free to have a look what these ex-pilots had to say...http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

Obviously as a pilot, you will understand this extract more than most... "So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie".



Probably yes, because he was trying to rent a plane at the time, but, for whatever reason (I can't remember) was told he'd have to take a test first. He failed that test & was refused rental of a plane.



No, no I don't know. But neither do you, or anyone else. It's all conjecture. It comes down to how you as an individual interprets or perceives what went on in that cockpit I guess. There is no concrete proof. The only things I've got to go on, is testimony of friends & family who've said there was no way he'd give his plane up, to a small guy armed with a box cutter.



That's your opinion. I believe all those physical factors would certainly have been present & made his job harder. Which again, is just an opinion.




Were these things readily available to the public in 2001? I certainly don't recall any handheld GPS type of equipment?

Firstly handheld GPS were available then.

Secondly, you asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. If you choose not to believe it that's your prerogative.

In answer to all your points: this was discussed ad nauseum on many pilot and flying related fora in the past. The general consensus was that the conspiracy theories simply don't hold water. I have neither the time nor the inclination to search for those threads now, so if you really are interested in finding the truth I suggest you do your own research.

 

[mrsblue]

Still not answering any counter points I notice. Just spouting unverified rubbish with no source.

Ok never mind then you carry on flying your piece of plastic propelled by an elastic band!

 

[mrsblue]

Firstly handheld GPS were available then.

Secondly, you asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. If you choose not to believe it that's your prerogative.

In answer to all your points: this was discussed ad nauseum on many pilot and flying related fora in the past. The general consensus was that the conspiracy theories simply don't hold water. I have neither the time nor the inclination to search for those threads now, so if you really are interested in finding the truth I suggest you do your own research.

So you admit you cannot be arsed to research yet you belittle anyone with any different view to you!

 

[OldBlueLady]

Just retorting with comments like that isn't going to help you mrsblue, londonblue has raised some matters which you appear to not have addressed. Unsubstantiated and flawed rhetoric isn't going to win you any arguments.

 

[mrsblue]

Just retorting with comments like that isn't going to help you mrsblue, londonblue has raised some matters which you appear to not have addressed. Unsubstantiated and flawed rhetoric isn't going to win you any arguments.

I am not trying to win any argument because I don't know if 9/11 was an inside job or not !,Some of the info I have read has made me wonder that is all.

 

[Jam_Man]

What started off as an interesting thread has now gone down the toilet.

Why open a thread and then when people post opposing arguments completely ignore everything raised and then get childish and petty ?