There is NO way to word it perfectly to leave the implication gameboy wishes to leave, ie. that a deliberate admission of ignorance is a measure of his wisdom.Originally Posted by jdaltroy5
It's only a measure of his willingness to present a negative trait as a positive.
boisterous hubris, arrogance, self deception, conspiracy, mud slinging mixed with a heavy dose of self righteousness.
You are already responding, and in the fashion I expected.
Thank you for playing along. you are an invaluable training tool.
Your point is a baseless assertion followed by an ad hominem?
And I look foolish? Uh uh.
That would be you, my disingenuous friend.
Exposing your ignorance is always "valuable," but, I suspect, redundant.
I just hope that you give up and don't proceed on the comparison of this whacking a building to a carrier landing.
That would take a lot of work.
An attempt to "expose" ignorance by pimping your own is always amusing.
That could be another Republican slogan.
"Vote gameboy - He KNOWS ignorance!"
Get used to this:
sharticus-flow-chart.jpg
IlluminatusUIUC (11-09-2012),MST3KBillsfan (11-09-2012),sukie (11-09-2012)
Can you please translate this into Venn diagram?
If you ever have anything, post it.
I'll respond.
What you have done over the past 10 years is author nonsense.
This thread has gone the way of so many others.
Reality leaves evidence.
Find it or shut the hell up.
MST3KBillsfan (11-09-2012)
sharticus-venn copy.jpg
IlluminatusUIUC (11-09-2012),MST3KBillsfan (11-10-2012)
This thread is in serious need of bacon.
I have, you have and you will continue to.
I can assure you...
Let's use this as a jumping off point to discuss sources. Here you post a picture of what you claim to be Flight 77's flightpath. Where did you get it? A quick google shows that it was posted here (http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_anal...s-analysis.htm).Remind me not to let you drive my Indy car. This is as silly as saying landing your Hornet on a carrier only requires you to aim at the deck.
And for the life of me I don't know how you "aim" at a stationary object on the ground while you're pulling several gees in a 270 degree descending turn...
Who wrote this? It's signed Steve Koeppel, and the author claims to himself have been a pilot and an Air Force navigator. So let's give him the benefit of the doubt and not only assume that it's true, but also that he is a legitimate expert on flying big iron.
How does he calculate this flight path? Well, in looking at the website, he did so by pulling info off a newspaper graphic. Here's what he said about it:
Yes, that's right. Exactly one line after he criticizes the newsmedia for inaccurate reporting, he bases his map on it.What's surprising is how many news sources got the information wrong. For example, look at this graphic from Reuters, which has the attack on the wrong side of the Pentagon:
I based my map of the attack path on a description of the attack ( see Pentagon Attack ) which said the plane was initially picked up on radar east-southeast of Dulles ( see WashMap 2 ) heading at high speed toward Washington.
So based upon this supposed location, trajectory, rotation, and the location where the Pentagon was hit, he makes up this map - which you posted as if it were factual.
Look at his own analysis:
So, the creator of the map you posted to prove your point ultimately winds up agreeing with the official story - that the crash was the result of an inexperienced pilot over-manipulating the controls. Not that it matters, because he flat out admits it's pure speculation.The arrowhead on the Attack Path map is aligned with the one on Pentagon 1. I worked backward from there, assuming there would need to be about a mile of straight flight at the end to get final alignment.
I based the turn radius on a 275 knot airspeed, since I doubt the airplane would have sufficient power and structural integrity to fly at 500 knots at low altitude. And unless the pilot had a lot of experience flying large airplanes at high speeds low to the ground, he would have avoided making a steep bank, so I based my turn radius on a 30 degree bank angle.
The 270 degree right turn had me puzzled, until I realized that it would provide a simple set of landmarks for the pilot. Just intercept the Potomac River north of town, follow it south until you see the Washington Monument or Capitol. We used to use white country churches to navigate low-level over North and South Carolina, since they stand out clearly against the green or brown background.
Upon passing the Washington Monument, the plan may have been for the pilot to make a right turn and dive into the building. A right turn at this point would have led the airplane to hit Pentagon on the Potomac River side where the Secretary of Defense has his office. http://www.armytimes.com/content/edi...agonimpact.jpg
But being unfamiliar with flying large airplanes at high speeds, the pilot wouldn't have taken into account the large radius required to make the turn. This would explain the circuitous 270 degree turn that was made to the impact point.
When he rolled out, he'd simply point the nose of the airplane at the center courtyard of the Pentagon and dive toward his target. What he wouldn't know without experience is that when you dive, you accelerate the airplane and the lift increases. This causes the nose to rise, which would cause him to overshoot the target. In a panic, he would push forward on the controls and overcompensate, which would account for eyewitness descriptions of the airplane striking the ground short of the Pentagon.
Of course, this is all speculation, not facts.
But look again at the map. That is assuming that 77 somehow wound up approaching Washington from the north. Which makes no sense, as it was a flight that departed Dulles on it's way to Los Angeles. Had the hijackers seized control and plotted the route directly back to Washington, they would have been approaching it from the West/Southwest. Which is what the NTSB report shows (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf)
So, based on that, I'd conclude that the news report was incorrect about the position and heading of the plane. Either because the controllers made a mistake or the reporters did.
As regards the DNA testing after the crash, I've been able to find are that the team was headed up by William C. Rodriguez III, a forensic anthropologist for the US Armed Forces Medical Examiner.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread342278/pg1
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...99312/fulltext
http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/pro...rgetid=profile
Most suspciously, the dude looks exactly like your avatar.
I think this connection needs to be explored.
And here is an article explaining part of the process written by five authors, all of whose names are unclassified and three of whom worked directly on the Pentagon DNA collection.
http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strb.../Edson2004.pdf
Suni Edson has a LinkedIn profile here - http://www.linkedin.com/pub/suni-edson/3b/b19/b2
Thomas Parsons has a contact info page here http://forensics.psu.edu/faculty-sta...rriculum-vitae
Now, having been given specific names and contact info will Spartacus actually contact these people to ask them about the DNA? Or, will he contiinue to snipe and accuse them of being accessories after the fact in a mass homicide?
SPOILER ALERT: No to the former, Yes to the latter.
So, your whole point with this post was to say the flight path I posted may not be exactly correct?
Do you have one you'd prefer me to use?
Oh, and while I have your attention, let me mention that HOW it was done is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of whether or not you did it.
In fact, the whole thing could have gone down EXACTLY as the 9/11 commission says and still you could have been behind it.
You DO realize that, don't you?
Your culpability does not hinge on whether or not the towers were brought down by CD.
"How's that?" you ask?
Think about it.
Is anyone surprised Sharticus is pimping a military man's argument?
MST3KBillsfan (11-09-2012)
"may not be exactly correct"? You posted up complete speculation that, even if it were true (and it isn't), supports the al-Qaeda theory.
Did you skip the big pictures in the middle there?Do you have one you'd prefer me to use?
"Your culpability"? Are you accusing me personally now?Oh, and while I have your attention, let me mention that HOW it was done is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of whether or not you did it.
In fact, the whole thing could have gone down EXACTLY as the 9/11 commission says and still you could have been behind it.
You DO realize that, don't you?
Your culpability does not hinge on whether or not the towers were brought down by CD.
"How's that?" you ask?
Think about it.
Sure, if you want to claim that the hijackers were actually secret agents or patsies or what have you, that's not as ridiculous as claiming that the planes were remote controlled, or that Flight 77 disappeared off radar and was replaced by another plane that looked exactly like it, or that the towers were secretly wired with silent non-explosive explosives, or any of the other nonsense.
But you don't have any evidence of that story either.
1. I posted a flight path. Now you wish to dispute it. A distinction without a difference.
2. I see 2 big pictures. Choose one or another, it makes no difference.
3. Yes, I am accusing you personally. There's no other explanation.
4. Of course there's evidence for the patsy story too.
You posted admitted rank speculation by a guy using data out of a newspaper article vs. an NTSB report using the actual radar and flight recorder data. The fact that you consider there to even be a dispute shows how off-base this whole discussion is.
They're the same flight path. One is the complete flightpath from origin to crash and the second is a zoom in on the final turn. There's no "choosing" here.2. I see 2 big pictures. Choose one or another, it makes no difference.
Well, looks like the jig is up. Colombo here figured it out.3. Yes, I am accusing you personally. There's no other explanation.
I sure wish I hadn't squandered all that money and power though.
Which is?4. Of course there's evidence for the patsy story too.
BTW, I love how you completely ignored the second half of my post about the DNA evidence. The fact that I found information that you were so certain was classified in 20 minutes of googling and reading articles has to burn.
Does anyone realize that God made bananas to perfectly fit our hands, and with a color indicator to tell us when it is at its yummiest?
You didn't need to spend the time. You could have just asked me, and I would have told you who did the analysis.
There was a great deal of cooperation between the families, our union and the company over this issue. An immense amount of care and respect by the folks at the lab level to not only identify the victims, but also to separate those remains from the murderers. The technicians who did this are not anonymous.
Regarding the right turn and the speculation by the linked data, it can be explained quite easily. The link you provided has an Air Force navigator speculating. Why not just ask someone who doesn't have to speculate?
In these cockpits, you cannot see whats under the other side. The turn was made to the right because that's where the murderer who was aiming it was seated. He would not be able to see what he was aiming at if he was turning left.
Why was he in the right seat? Because there was a dead body and an awful amount of blood in the left seat.
This quote from Spartacus sums up the entire issue, because he demonstrates complete ignorance.
"And for the life of me I don't know how you "aim" at a stationary object on the ground while you're pulling several gees in a 270 degree descending turn..."
Of course you don't understand, but that is exactly how airplanes are flown, when they are being flown visually. That is exactly how bombs are dropped when there is no air defense. That is the easiest way to do things.
270 degrees is a meaningless number. It could have been any degree of turn. Would 360 impress you more? 180 less?
"Gees," is not a word. G's is how it is termed, and I doubt it was "several," it was probably about 1.5.
By the way. You don't seem to understand the speed variance in this event. It wasn't going that fast until he jammed the thrust levers to the stops in the last portion of this ram job.
That's why he hit the ground first. He was simply unable to control the pitch of the airplane at the speed he was travelling.
Last edited by gameboy; 11-10-2012 at 04:09 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
