I didn't TELL you to do anything. I suggested a different pattern of behavior that would be to your benefit. It's called advice. Take it or leave it as you wish but at least go the effort of understanding it.
boisterous hubris, arrogance, self deception, conspiracy, mud slinging mixed with a heavy dose of self righteousness.
What I am asking is why, if the Pentagon was the target, did he not just fly straight into it? All sorts of possible explanations, including maybe he was aiming for a specific section of the Pentagon.
I've got to admit. I never quite know what general mistake in judgement you are going to make as you continue to reveal your fantasy.
They are always funny though.
1. "Biggest office building," is completely irrelevant. The Atlantic ocean is a darn big body of water.
You can't see it from West Virginia, but you don't have to be over the shore to see it.
Camouflaged is a really silly way of describing something blocking your line of site.
He flew the airplane east, actually, I think the nav system was programmed to fly to a certain point, that's how they work, until he saw the Pentagon, not too far west of it. He then turned the airplane to slam into it.
The can't get there from here issue is very significant, regardless of your view, and its one of your problems, not someone else s.
2. Of course he descended long before he was in the area. Do you know how long it takes to descend from 35000', 7000', 5000' when you really don't know what you're doing?
3. "Homing beacons," and "computer programs?" Lions and tigers and bears. Oh My!
Sure. evidently there is no limit to the amount of people that must have been involved in this as your speculations expand.
Last edited by gameboy; 11-12-2012 at 07:20 PM.
But the utter lack of any plausible means of getting from Point A to C is the gaping hole in your conclusion. As I've said over and over again, there's nothing about the day of that can't be explained by the terrorists doing what they are accused of doing, and nothing about the post-9/11 period that can't be explained by Bush and his cronies exploiting a tragedy for their own purposes. You have made the enormous unfounded leap that because they benefited, they must have planned.It's you that keeps jumping to hysterically emotional declarations (see bolded section) of what my conclusions supposedly are, even though I have stated over and over again that for my overall conclusion to be valid, I am not required to come to valid conclusions about every individual event.
Because that's where the high value targets are, like I said. If all he wanted to do was kill people, he could have hit any office tower in Cincinnati. They wanted to hit something big and recognizable, as you said. Which, to my mind, acts as a legitimate reason for him to take his time looping around rather than nosing over into an uncontrollable suicide dive.But "Why Washington rather than Cincinnati?"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_175You are jumping to conclusions again. The fact is the plane became untraceable, as did they all,
At 08:47, the plane's transponder signal changed once, and a second time within a minute, and the aircraft began deviating from its assigned course. But, the air traffic controller in charge of the flight did not notice until minutes later at 08:51. Unlike Flight 11, which had turned its transponder off, Flight 175's flight data could still be properly monitored. Also, at 08:51, Flight 175 changed altitude. Over the next three minutes, the controller made five unsuccessful attempts to contact Flight 175, and worked to move other aircraft in the vicinity away from Flight 175.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_93without a highjacking code punched in or a "Help, we're being hijacked" radioed by the crew.
And look, a link to the radio call:The hijacking on Flight 93 began at 09:28. By this time, Flights 11 and 175 had already crashed into the World Trade Center and Flight 77 was within 9 minutes of striking the Pentagon. The hijackers on those flights had waited no more than 30 minutes to commandeer the aircraft, most likely striking after the seat-belt sign had been turned off and cabin service had begun. It is unknown why the hijackers on Flight 93 waited approximately 46 minutes to begin their assault. The flight suddenly dropped 685 feet (209 m) in half a minute. At 09:28:17, Captain Jason Dahl began shouting, "Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!" over the radio amidst sounds of violence. A Cleveland Air Traffic Controller replied, "Somebody call Cleveland?" but received no reply.
Thirty-five seconds after the first Mayday call, the crew made another transmission. Someone in the cockpit shouted, "Mayday! Get out of here! Get out of here!"
How ridiculously remote does the probability of some event have to be before you dismiss it? 1 in 100,000? 1 in 1,000,000? 1 in 10,000,000? The possibility that a plane disappeared off radar and was never seen again, happening at the same time they merge its path with another aircraft that subsequently struck the Pentagon, only no evidence of this latter aircraft was recovered while evidence of the former was planted in the wreckage? Where do you rate that?Was it the same plane that reappeared? Maybe, but one cannot say for sure. Could something else have happened? It can't be ignored. Now, are you going to start quibbling about the meaning of "plausible"?
Good thing they had a spare 757 in flight on standby for these "technical issues."You don't know that. Could be technical issues. And it "accomplished" the attack on the Pentagon.
Once again, you're bashing a strawman. "... it was a slow looping descent that the pilot made without fear of interception." was, and is, not my characterization, it was gameboy's confused description.Originally Posted by SpartacusAgain, you back off a point and claim you never said it.You're arguing "ease"? Please. It would be much easier to **** up doing what he did rather than just aiming the plane at the building as gameboy said. It would also be faster, since he would be worried about being intercepted. Unless he wasn't.
Because it's not "remote" for one thing. The "wire" in fly by wire is a big clue. The mechanics are connected by direct connections, not radio waves controlling them from offsite. For another, none of the planes involved in 9/11 had the true Fly-By-Wire systems installed.Please. What is fly-by-wire, other than remote control? The pilot/controller gives the machine instructions, the machine carries them out. Easy.
The 757 and 767 had electronically assisted controls, not on par with the digital fly-by-wire system that Boeing installed in the 777. The difference is what means you can't just take control of the aircraft, the pilots still have manual overrides they can employ. Even the 777 has them.Boeing's conservative approach was illustrated in the 1970s and 1980s when it decided not to include in its 767 more advanced systems such as fly-by-wire, fly-by-light, flat panel video displays, and advanced propulsion systems (Holtby, 1986). Even though the technology existed, Boeing did not believe it was mature enough for the 767. Boeing also used what Gansler defines as a design-to-cost constraint. After Boeing defines a program it evaluates cost before going into production. Its cost evaluations include trade offs of performance, technology, and manufacturing investments.
Cruise missile guidance systems aren't trying to jury-rig their system into an existing control setup without anyone noticing. Big difference.How do you think cruise missiles hit their targets? Jesus.
I thought about it, read about it, found no evidence for it, and dismissed it accordingly.I wasn't asking you what was in each hijacker's head or jump to a conclusion. So, if the possibility of Bin Laden working for someone else occurred to you, did you dismiss it right away or did you think about it?
Those same people worked on Flight 93's remains, which were partially processed at the AFIP lab in Maryland.Huh? Dude, we're only talking about the Pentagon crash site. I don't know what other ****ing crash site you think we're talking about. You're really not paying attention, are you?
Billszone 2013 Prediction Contest winner!
I don't read all of his posts, but since you quoted this one, I'll comment.
I flew the 757/757, (they under the same "type" rating, which means an individual certified in one is certified in the other), for 15 years.
I have flown the airplane I now fly, the 777 for four
I am extremely knowledgeable about their flight controls, as well as the flight controls of other airliners.
Though a complete red herring, it is one of the mythologists favorite BS lines.
Their isn't a plane in service anywhere whose autopilot cannot be disconnected, by any number of means. It is not only a certification regulation, there isn't a single human who would agree to fly it. Autopilots are turned on well after takeoff, and well before landing. Occasionally the autoland function is used, but only in very specific circumstances and with very significant restrictions. Most airlines are not certified for it. It takes a lot of training and a lot of maintenance. These two were.
There is nothing about the 757/767 flight controls that has anything to do with this.
Regarding the transponder operation, that would be the last thing one would do in such a situation. The thing was very likely manipulated by the hijackers, as they did in the other situations.
Last edited by gameboy; 11-12-2012 at 10:05 PM.
Uh, 7 miles at 8 miles per minute = take a guess. That's the lower limit. Till you run out of gas and fall from the sky is the upper limit. Everything else is in between. So, what's your point?
2. Mayday could refer to a number of different scenarios other than a highjacking.
And nyuck nyuck, I guess it would be unthinkable to install one. Totally impossible. What was I thinking?
Show me evidence! That's not evidence!
Here we go again.
But, as I keep saying, it doesn't matter anyway whether or not the people were in the plane or not or if they were alive or dead at the moment of impact. The question of who ordered it still remains.
And the fact still remains that it was supposedly ordered by the scion of a hyper-wealthy Saudi family with a long history of involvement with the CIA for no reason other than he was supposedly pissed about American troops on Saudi soil.
And the fact still remains that ALL of Al Qaeda's major operations benefited the right-wing and the MIC's of the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
And, of course, right-wing Israelis.
But, somehow THOSE facts carry no weight to you to the point you won't even acknowledge them as evidence.
Is there anybody that is still on the fence about this?
I think you're huffing and puffing to no one Shiva.
ANYWAY, I asked a serious question and then told you what I thought was happening.
"I THINK" isn't any sort of definitive statement that is answering for anyone.
I'll make it more clear.
Is there anybody that is still on the fence about this subject?
If so, are these arguments swaying your decision in any way?
And as for "Is anyone still on the fence", why do you presume the intent of the thread was to change people's minds?
It could be about peoples' unwillingness to be objective when subjective beliefs and gut feelings are questioned, and the lengths they are willing to go to to deny reality.
This applies to all sorts of different situations, so what happens is people will be objective when they know that objectivity will fill a subjective desire, but when it doesn't, they won't.
My expertise in this issue allows me to continuously refute what you provide nothing but ignorance about. You stuff has become equal, or even worse than, the craziest ill informed myth stuff, and the closer you get to actually guessing what happened, the worse you get.
Its the same stuff over and over.
Recently, its about switching transponder codes that you seem to be interested in or getting on the radio to alert people who can't do a damn thing for you about a situation they have no control over.
If you were getting mugged would you defend yourself or make a phone call?
The point is that you make many, many illogical assertions, and you make them over and over. Many, I haven't even commented on.
Knowing what its like, and knowing how things actually work, is a benefit you might enjoy in you pursuit of relentless guesses on world events.
This one, I do. Others, like movie making, I don't, so I don't talk about it.