yeah i understand about the pilots land everyday but surely they don't be going as fast as he did upon impact. and did this guy even fly one of these things before ?
9/11 Third Tower mystery "solved".
- Thread starter checjb
- Start date
- Status
yeah i understand about the pilots land everyday but surely they don't be going as fast as he did upon impact. and did this guy even fly one of these things before ?
If you don't care about landing safely then getting it to the ground really isn't going to be an issue. Point at Pentagon, begin descent, stop really suddenly. Landing is only tricky if you actually care about living through it.
had a lot of simulator training he wasn't just some random guy.
Again if the pentagon wasn't there and he had gone that low that fast he would have slammed into the ground anyway it wasn't some long controlled flight at a low level it was just the last short leg before slamming into the ground.
ok a quick google says 'final impact speed was 530 mph'..had this actually guy flew a 757 before ?
Not as far as I'm aware he did have plane training and simulation time IIRC.
Seeing as you can land a plane with no experience and just being talked through it (see mythbusters).
Increase in speed helps matters not subtracts as the plane can manoeuvre. Low speed you have very little lift.
so you think pretty much any pilot could fly a 757 low enough to knock down street lights at 530mph ?
but do remember he may be on a suicide mission but he was giving up his life for this mission which he would only get 1 shot at so he would be under some pressure too.
Yes, because the intention is to crash.
Te difficult part is reaching those levels and surviving.
even if he hit short it would have still slammed into the pentagon.
At full throttle it really is as easy as pointing the nose. Go on a few flight sims, yes they are flight sims but for such a simple manoeuvre.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 410
You see? You assume everyone is arguing with you. Third hand photos and eye witness reports of strangers. I'm trying to make a point that you are adamant that you know EXACTLY what happened and immediately dismiss any other possibility. Do you for one second think that there is more accurate information of the events on some US government database that you don't have access to?
I have never said that. I will only dismiss your argument if you provide nothing to back up your statement.
I had a very good friend in New York at the time, he saw the planes hit, along with thousands of other New Yorkers and the world's media.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
My girlfriend's grandparents saw the crash, and took photos. I'm inclined to believe them.
Your problem is that you abuse scepticism. You're supposed to remain sceptical until you are shown evidence to convince you otherwise - you are sceptical of being sceptical; you demand evidence, it gets provided, but your scepticism just increases.
The default position should be; "X did not happen until it can be shown it did". A teapot is not orbiting the moon right now because there is nothing to show that it is.
Fact is, you're never going to be convinced. You relish and enjoy the thought of 'something else' being the cause, 'someone else' being behind it. Don't worry - you're not alone. There are many others who need their lives to be made more exciting through escapism. It is just a shame it wastes so much Internet debating time!
Last edited:
Now you are just quoting that youtube video.
So which of your relatives were at the Pentagon?
I don't have an argument for or against. I admit that these events are above me and I'm not arrogant enough to assume I know everything about them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
I'm quoting many things, actually, because there are only so many correct approaches to critical thinking and logical reduction.
I already said so.
Actually you didn't state which plane. So which of your relatives were in New York?
But hey, if your girlfriends grandparents saw a plane crash then that settles it. We must automatically assume there is nothing else going on here.
And I am not demanding evidence, I am perfectly fine sitting on my fence until further information presents itself.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
My girlfriend's grandparents aren't the only ones who saw it or had photos/video of it. What "further" information do you need? You have eye witness accounts. You have photos, video, you have official reports. You have testimony from air traffic controllers. You have details from those systems.
For the record I don't think it was a cover up and I have never stated such. I just think the magnitude of these events is beyond any of us and to assume that we know absolutely everything about what happened. It's not only about what was seen. Like someone said earlier, it is possible that the US government knew about the attacks beforehand and for whatever reason allowed them to happen. Again, I'm not saying this is true but we average joes cannot simply say "I am right, you are wrong".
Call me a devils advocate if you like, I'm just sick of people on both sides adamant that they are correct about something that is way above their pay grade.
No one has, however you can discredit a lot of CT due to lack or incorrect evidence to support their theory. Where other theorys simply have no evidence what so ever.
Like most things, it can be broken down into basics. That is what you need to look at and the evidence for it. No, none of us are trained. but you should have more than enough ability to understand most of the Nist reports and the Ct theorys. To understand the effects they should have and what should be viable or other such evidence.
Please don't ever use that phrase again. You've clearly been watching too many Steven Seagal movies.
- Status