911 Towers Were Exploded Outwards, Not Collapsed

[oldbetang]

I think I said 'less flight experience', not 'less flight experience on a Boeing 757'.

The simulation experiment starts at about 4:40 of the video.

YouTube - ‪Pentagon Attack Analysis Zembla Video‬‏




I don't 'know' it, but Jarrah purchased GPS equipment, and inquired about purchasing more.

Here's the link to the 9/11 myths page, scroll down to 22nd August 2001 on the timeline for this:

"Jarrah buys a Garmin GPS III Pilot/Americas from Oshkosh Pilot Shop, 5249 NW 36 Street, Miami, Fl. (The balance is paid with a credit card five days later)."

Ziad Jarrah Timeline: Official - 911myths


And here's the scan of the receipt, which was introduced in the Moussaui trial:

Image:Jarrah Garmin GPS.jpg - 911myths


From the 9/11 Commission Report, we also have this:

"On August 22, moreover, Jarrah attempted to purchase four GPS units from a pilot shop in Miami. He was able to buy only one unit, which he picked up a few days later when he also purchased three aeronautical charts."

I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination that Hanjour was using a GPS, and this makes perfect sense of the turn-and-descent that happened prior to the crash.




You're correct; that point was irrelevant to him finding the Pentagon.


Btodd

Excellent! Thanks for posting that video.

 

[oldbetang]

Uhhh..Guys, that doesn't sound French to me. Dutch maybe, but not French.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

No, it isn't. There are parts of Loose Change shown to the Frenchmen, but the link is not a 'french version of Loose Change'.



He had more flight experience than Hanjour? How did you find that out? The point was well-made, that it's not some fantastic flying feat that could not be accomplished by Hani Hanjour. We can examine other sources in regard to the claim, if you wish.




The site itself has nothing to do with the information I presented, which were sourced from the Moussaui Trial. And if you're going to play games like that, "I don't accept anything from there", then don't pretend to want an answer.




No, I do have an idea that he had one, and gave evidence that suggests that was their plan in advance. Just because you decided to dismiss it out-of-hand (I don't read anything from 9/11 myths, or the Moussaui trial) does not count for an argument. Don't pretend to want answers if you're gonna refuse them, a priori.




I don't think he was proficient at reading the instruments of a 757; hence the GPS. It's hard to see where you can reverse the actual reality of these debates by saying that we get to use conjecture, while you have to provide hard facts...have you actually READ this thread? If you wanna label an entire camp as using conjecture, it's definitely the 9/11 Truth camp.



I admitted that it was irrelevant to him finding the Pentagon, and the fact that you would continue to harp on it after that admission shows me that you're more interested in scoring rhetorical points than actually getting at the truth. Perhaps you can explain why there was a big turn and descent better than I did?

Nah, you probably don't have to, as usual. Incredulity is supposed to count as proof of a conspiracy.


Btodd

It was the OCT version of loose change...meaning they are guilty of the same agenda driven drivel as the LC clowns.

You claimed people with less xperience were able to do what hanjour did but you provided only one person who was a better pilot than hanjour and the narrator even admitted the guy practiced it!

If you have valid info then link it to a legit source. The 9/11myths site is a joke and not worth the time as I've seen too often it is deceptive. But since it is pro-OCT you don't care.

You have absolutely no evidence hanjour had a gps but keep pretending your conjecture carries any weight.

I didn't harp on your false xponder claim but merely used it to highlight you don't know basic facts but want to play Columbo to defend the OCT.

There is a better explanation for the big turn and descent but I don't expect you to admit it. Since the plane came in from the west it had to make a big turn to hit the only section of the Pentagon that has just been re-built and reinforced. Quite amazing Hanjour only had a 20% chance of hitting that section.

 

[Btodd]

It was the OCT version of loose change...meaning they are guilty of the same agenda driven drivel as the LC clowns.

Oh, so you were using metaphor. Right. And you have no agenda. Riiiight.

You claimed people with less xperience were able to do what hanjour did but you provided only one person who was a better pilot than hanjour and the narrator even admitted the guy practiced it!

Before, it was 'how could anyone have less experience on a 757 than Hanjour', and now it's irrelevant that it was a 757? Still didn't hear how you decided he was better at this.

If you have valid info then link it to a legit source. The 9/11myths site is a joke and not worth the time as I've seen too often it is deceptive. But since it is pro-OCT you don't care.

The site is sourcing the Moussaui trial, and I provided you with those links, and a picture of the GPS receipt, which was a trial exhibit. Perhaps you should spell out what a 'legit source' is, so you don't have to pretend that you want an answer, only to say, 'that's not the answer I wanted, so it's not a legit source'.

You have absolutely no evidence hanjour had a gps but keep pretending your conjecture carries any weight.

I showed that Jarrah had already purchased one, and tried to purchase more. How do you know whether Jarrah used that GPS, or Hanjour's crew did? And what if they didn't? I'm giving a plausible explanation for the turn-and-descent, and since Jarrah also bought 3 aeronautical charts...is it possible that Hanjour didn't have a GPS, but used a chart?

Maybe so. But since none of that is from a 'legit source' (in other words, a conspiracy website), then why argue the point? You've already staked out your position of not accepting sources that agree with the official story...and will likely not attempt to offer a more plausible explanation for the events. Cast doubt, and pretend it's proof of a conspiracy.

There is a better explanation for the big turn and descent but I don't expect you to admit it. Since the plane came in from the west it had to make a big turn to hit the only section of the Pentagon that has just been re-built and reinforced.

Wait, who's using conjecture again?

Who was flying the plane, then? This is where it will get interesting to see how you respond. You're either going to have to propose remote-controlled planes, or try to persuade us that a real person was flying it (to their own death), yet was mindful of hitting an area where there would be the least number of casualties? Haha. I can't wait for this.

Quite amazing Hanjour only had a 20% chance of hitting that section.

LOL. It's a 5-sided building! I suggest you never roll dice, because no matter what number they land on, it's going to blow your mind.


Btodd

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Oh, so you were using metaphor. Right. And you have no agenda. Riiiight.




Before, it was 'how could anyone have less experience on a 757 than Hanjour', and now it's irrelevant that it was a 757? Still didn't hear how you decided he was better at this.




The site is sourcing the Moussaui trial, and I provided you with those links, and a picture of the GPS receipt, which was a trial exhibit. Perhaps you should spell out what a 'legit source' is, so you don't have to pretend that you want an answer, only to say, 'that's not the answer I wanted, so it's not a legit source'.




I showed that Jarrah had already purchased one, and tried to purchase more. How do you know whether Jarrah used that GPS, or Hanjour's crew did? And what if they didn't? I'm giving a plausible explanation for the turn-and-descent, and since Jarrah also bought 3 aeronautical charts...is it possible that Hanjour didn't have a GPS, but used a chart?

Maybe so. But since none of that is from a 'legit source' (in other words, a conspiracy website), then why argue the point? You've already staked out your position of not accepting sources that agree with the official story...and will likely not attempt to offer a more plausible explanation for the events. Cast doubt, and pretend it's proof of a conspiracy.




Wait, who's using conjecture again?

Who was flying the plane, then? This is where it will get interesting to see how you respond. You're either going to have to propose remote-controlled planes, or try to persuade us that a real person was flying it (to their own death), yet was mindful of hitting an area where there would be the least number of casualties? Haha. I can't wait for this.




LOL. It's a 5-sided building! I suggest you never roll dice, because no matter what number they land on, it's going to blow your mind.


Btodd

I stopped reading when you falsely claimed I said it is irrelevant it was a 757. I never said that.

You falsely claimed PEOPLE with less experience duplicated the flight when in reality you gave one pilot who actually practiced!! What a joke.

 

[Btodd]

I stopped reading when you falsely claimed I said it is irrelevant it was a 757. I never said that.

You falsely claimed PEOPLE with less experience duplicated the flight when in reality you gave one pilot who actually practiced!! What a joke.

I reminded you of your initial complaint, which became irrelevant once you didn't like the answer you got.

And I'm not surprised that you wouldn't respond to the rest; it's par for the course. Trying to get you to was a roll of the dice, I guess...haha.


Btodd

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I reminded you of your initial complaint, which became irrelevant once you didn't like the answer you got.

And I'm not surprised that you wouldn't respond to the rest; it's par for the course. Trying to get you to was a roll of the dice, I guess...haha.


Btodd

You falsely calimed I said it was irrelvant it was a 757. My complaint is you falslely claimed people with less experience than hanjour duplicated the flight when in fact it was an experienced pilot who PRACTICED!!!!

 

[Btodd]

You falsely calimed I said it was irrelvant it was a 757. My complaint is you falslely claimed people with less experience than hanjour duplicated the flight when in fact it was an experienced pilot who PRACTICED!!!!

You better check my quote again...I didn't say you 'said' it was irrelevant, I was referencing your behavior once you got an answer you didn't like.

Whatever allows you to skip the rest of my post, as usual. After accusations of conjecture on my part, you had no problem offering up a worse example, and then making a hilarious reference to a '20% chance' of hitting that side on a 5-sided building!

Keep 'em coming, that was classic.


Btodd

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

You better check my quote again...I didn't say you 'said' it was irrelevant, I was referencing your behavior once you got an answer you didn't like.

Whatever allows you to skip the rest of my post, as usual. After accusations of conjecture on my part, you had no problem offering up a worse example, and then making a hilarious reference to a '20% chance' of hitting that side on a 5-sided building!

Keep 'em coming, that was classic.


Btodd

You claimed people with less experience than hanjour pulled it off when in fact your video had one experienced pilot who practiced!! Lol....

You asked for an explanation on the big turn and I provided one as it was logical a big turn was needed since the plane came in from the West. It had to make a big turn to hit the newly constructed section.

 

[Btodd]

You claimed people with less experience than hanjour pulled it off when in fact your video had one experienced pilot who practiced!! Lol....

You asked for an explanation on the big turn and I provided one as it was logical a big turn was needed since the plane came in from the West. It had to make a big turn to hit the newly constructed section.

That doesn't explain anything, because you haven't given a reason why it 'needed' to hit the newly constructed section.

This appears to imply nothing but the idea that the plane was remote-control flown, otherwise it makes zero sense for a suicide pilot to kill himself and the passengers while trying to minimize the loss of life inside the Pentagon.

Plus, the issue of where the passengers of Flight 77 were during this, etc...so don't pretend you've done anything but offer some conjecture (after chastising me for supposedly doing it), and then just stopped there. Again, incredulity is not proof of a conspiracy, nor is it an explanation.

So, please offer your explanation, because that did nothing of the sort.


Btodd

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

That doesn't explain anything, because you haven't given a reason why it 'needed' to hit the newly constructed section.

This appears to imply nothing but the idea that the plane was remote-control flown, otherwise it makes zero sense for a suicide pilot to kill himself and the passengers while trying to minimize the loss of life inside the Pentagon.

Plus, the issue of where the passengers of Flight 77 were during this, etc...so don't pretend you've done anything but offer some conjecture (after chastising me for supposedly doing it), and then just stopped there. Again, incredulity is not proof of a conspiracy, nor is it an explanation.

So, please offer your explanation, because that did nothing of the sort.


Btodd

Did you ever find those people with less experience that duplicated hanjour's flight path? The guy who had more experience and actually PRACTICED does not qualify.

You ask for a better explanation of the turn so I gave one. No worries, I knew you wouldn't acknowledge it. Stick to your lol....some dude bought gps units so hanjour had one! Lol...

 

[Btodd]

Did you ever find those people with less experience that duplicated hanjour's flight path? The guy who had more experience and actually PRACTICED does not qualify.

I already asked you how you determined that he had more experience than Hanjour...and have yet to see your answer. Nor did you articulate what 'practice' was about...the flight path, or the actual maneuver? The maneuver has already been established as not being the 'magic trick' that your side continually tries to make it out to be.

You ask for a better explanation of the turn so I gave one. No worries, I knew you wouldn't acknowledge it.

I repeat:

"That doesn't explain anything, because you haven't given a reason why it 'needed' to hit the newly constructed section.

This appears to imply nothing but the idea that the plane was remote-control flown, otherwise it makes zero sense for a suicide pilot to kill himself and the passengers while trying to minimize the loss of life inside the Pentagon.

Plus, the issue of where the passengers of Flight 77 were during this, etc...so don't pretend you've done anything but offer some conjecture (after chastising me for supposedly doing it), and then just stopped there. Again, incredulity is not proof of a conspiracy, nor is it an explanation.

So, please offer your explanation, because that did nothing of the sort."

And this intentional dodge, after you acted indignant earlier, claiming that all 'we' did was offer conjecture, and expected you to fill the Potomac with facts, or something of the sort.

I think you need to invest in a mirror.

Stick to your lol....some dude bought gps units so hanjour had one! Lol...

Hey, at least I have an explanation, and it actually fits with what happened that day (that's what explanations are supposed to do). We'll see what you do with the questions above, after popping off about the plane intentionally trying to hit the remodeled portion. Intended by whom?


Btodd

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I already asked you how you determined that he had more experience than Hanjour...and have yet to see your answer. Nor did you articulate what 'practice' was about...the flight path, or the actual maneuver? The maneuver has already been established as not being the 'magic trick' that your side continually tries to make it out to be.




I repeat:

"That doesn't explain anything, because you haven't given a reason why it 'needed' to hit the newly constructed section.

This appears to imply nothing but the idea that the plane was remote-control flown, otherwise it makes zero sense for a suicide pilot to kill himself and the passengers while trying to minimize the loss of life inside the Pentagon.

Plus, the issue of where the passengers of Flight 77 were during this, etc...so don't pretend you've done anything but offer some conjecture (after chastising me for supposedly doing it), and then just stopped there. Again, incredulity is not proof of a conspiracy, nor is it an explanation.

So, please offer your explanation, because that did nothing of the sort."

And this intentional dodge, after you acted indignant earlier, claiming that all 'we' did was offer conjecture, and expected you to fill the Potomac with facts, or something of the sort.

I think you need to invest in a mirror.




Hey, at least I have an explanation, and it actually fits with what happened that day (that's what explanations are supposed to do). We'll see what you do with the questions above, after popping off about the plane intentionally trying to hit the remodeled portion. Intended by whom?


Btodd

Lol....did you even watch your own video? They stated his qualifications and admitted he practiced. Based on this level of outright dishonesty.....have a good one.

 

[Btodd]

Lol....did you even watch your own video? They stated his qualifications and admitted he practiced. Based on this level of outright dishonesty.....have a good one.

Never said he didn't (quote me on it if you disagree!), and you hardly need to get righteous given your behavior, angel.

I knew you would never elaborate on who 'intended' to hit the Pentagon in that spot, it's easier to create a strawman and excuse yourself from the discussion...same old, same old. Incredulity passed off as rigor.


Btodd

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Never said he didn't (quote me on it if you disagree!), and you hardly need to get righteous given your behavior, angel.

I knew you would never elaborate on who 'intended' to hit the Pentagon in that spot, it's easier to create a strawman and excuse yourself from the discussion...same old, same old. Incredulity passed off as rigor.


Btodd

You claimed PEOPLE WITH LESS EXPERIENCE than hanjour used a simulator to duplicate the flight path when in fact it was ONE EXPERIENCED PILOT WHO PRACTICED and he didn't even use a 757 simulator. Hahahahaha......yes I proudly stand by my behavior.

 

[Btodd]

You claimed PEOPLE WITH LESS EXPERIENCE than hanjour used a simulator to duplicate the flight path when in fact it was ONE EXPERIENCED PILOT WHO PRACTICED and he didn't even use a 757 simulator. Hahahahaha......yes I proudly stand by my behavior.

So, you couldn't quote me as saying he 'never practiced', after that was the 'dishonesty' that you feigned moral outrage over? Don't worry, you don't need to apologize.

Strange that you always seem to find this moral outrage right when you're asked to elaborate on a slip-up ('intented to hit that part of the Pentagon'). If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might think the timing were repeatedly intentional.

Intended by whom, RealDeal? The remote-control pilot?


Btodd

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

So, you couldn't quote me as saying he 'never practiced', after that was the 'dishonesty' that you feigned moral outrage over? Don't worry, you don't need to apologize.

Strange that you always seem to find this moral outrage right when you're asked to elaborate on a slip-up ('intented to hit that part of the Pentagon'). If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might think the timing were repeatedly intentional.

Intended by whom, RealDeal? The remote-control pilot?


Btodd

I don't care if you said he practiced or not. You claimed....neverfreakingmind....

 

[Btodd]

I don't care if you said he practiced or not. You claimed....neverfreakingmind....

Should I now feign outrage at your dishonesty, then?


Btodd

 

[Btodd]

Aside from the fact that GPS does nothing to improve flying skills, now Hani Hanjour, who barely knows what the instruments are for, is holding a hand-held GPS in one hand and flying with the other, doing a maneuver which has experienced top gun combat pilots' jaws drop and say, "nope."

Perhaps you forgot that Hani Hanjour wasn’t the only hijacker on the plane? There were four others, you know...all with hands.

The ‘maneuver’ was a turn-and-descent, the first thing you learn before takeoff or landing. And our sim pilot in the video, who also has small plane and simulator training like Hani Hanjour...did it three times. Since ‘he practiced’ seems to be the refrain, you need to take note that so did Hani Hanjour, and the rest of the hijackers, all the way up until shortly before 9/11. I linked RealDeal to the timeline of the hijackers up until 9/11, which documents their continued training, complete with when they did it, where, and the payments made.

What you are neglecting to mention about your discredited simulator video is that the crash logic is turned off, meaning that when a real plane would be plowing into the ground or spinning like a cartwheel from tipping a wing into the ground, he gets to keep going. That's a pretty big gimme.

The point was supposed to be about this big acrobatic maneuver (otherwise known as a turn with descent, to the reality-based crowd) you guys claim is required, and their simulation is to show that it is not. Rob Balsamo’s original assessment of the flight data is mathematically incorrect, as is is pointed out by a mathematician, here (Rob is not a physicist or mathematician). This addresses both his calculations and the resulting video he made:

Rob Balsamo's Physics of Conspiracy

I’m not sure if you can even plot the light poles for the simulator, but it will be very interesting to hear you guys attempt to explain how those poles fell, when there are photos of them right after the crash, while the building is still burning, while cars are stopped in morning traffic, right there on the highway. Did a crew of guys run up there and knock down/plant light poles right along the highway full of stopped cars, without anyone noticing? Did a dumptruck pull up on the lawn and dump pre-burnt, pre-mangled wreckage from a 757? Are more than 40 witnesses to the plane all lying? As usual, the supposed conspiracy will be much more complex and convoluted than the real explanation.

It is not based on data

It was created in order to give a basic idea as to the plausibility of such a turn-and-descent, which it establishes. Nobody is saying this is a perfect replication of what happened with Flight 77, and I don’t think such a thing is even possible. Try to re-create a car crash. Even if you re-create it to the best of your ability, it will not happen exactly the same way every time you do it. But the calculations regarding whether the turn and descent could be made, and the experiment done here...support what happened. As do many other things, which we will get into.

The crash logic was disabled; The over-speed warnings were disabled

I think the over-speed warning comes on at 5:45, doesn’t it? What is telling them that the bank angle is a bit too much? Note that he also says that the plane will take it. Don’t forget; Hanjour was not flying the plane safely...that is something nobody denies. But that’s a different matter than, ‘it couldn’t be done’.

The simplest way to put the lie to the Pentagon story, and much of the rest of the Official Conspiracy Theory, is the fact that they destroyed the evidence.

Please provide a source for this claim.

Where is the aircraft debris from the Pentagon crash?

Have you checked on this yourself, before expecting me to find out for you?

We saw pictures of it, and one of the favorite attacks on Truthers is "they say a missile hit the Pentagon!" So why don't we all go look at the wreckage and look at the parts stamps, and identify it once and for all? Because it has been destroyed, probably exactly to lay a path toward endless speculation to discredit the truth movement.

To be fair here, some Truthers appeal to a missile here, some appeal to a fake plane, and some appeal to Flight 77 having been remote-control hijacked and hitting the Pentagon. Balsamo and P4T fall into the first camp, because they say NO PLANE CRASHED THERE. They actually try to claim that Flight 77 did a ‘flyover’, and flew off into the sunset, while a plane/missile following right behind it was the culprit (funny, because no witnesses support this at all, Balsamo just thinks his calculations of the flight data make this a certainty!).

What do you appeal to? A remote-controlled Flight 77? Remember, you cited an article earlier in the discussion that established that the planes were hijacked. You’ll either need to incorporate the remote-control takeover of an already hijacked plane (which would be entertaining to hear the logic behind), or disavow the article you cited. We’ll see.

– Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career. Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic:

"In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident."

The make and model are identified, and Flight 77 never appeared again, nor did any of its passengers. You wanna explain that? And how in the world does this guy wonder what the ‘precise cause of the accident’ was? That’s well-established...a hijacked 757 was flown into the Pentagon!

Don't worry, the story you are defending is even more ridiculous. It asks us to believe that the 5'0" shrimp Hani either overpowered the 6'4" former combat Marine Capt. Burlingame, AND his co-pilot, and took over the airship, or herded them submissively to the back of the plane at knife point where they gave up control of their aircraft.

Are you seriously under the impression that Hani Hanjour was the only hijacker? That’s twice you’ve referred to Hanjour as if he did this all by himself (‘GPS in his hand’ was the first).


Originally Posted by Btodd
This appears to imply nothing but the idea that the plane was remote-control flown, otherwise it makes zero sense for a suicide pilot to kill himself and the passengers while trying to minimize the loss of life inside the Pentagon.

There you go again, saying unless we know what did happen, we can't say what could not have.

RealDeal tried to explain the turn-and-descent by claiming that it was intentional so as to hit the remodeled portion of the Pentagon, in order to minimize the loss of life. If you do not see how the only possibility here is a remote-controlled aircraft, I will be stunned. What pilot that was actually aboard the plane, would be willing to fly to his own death, but only in a way as to ‘minimize’ the loss of life at the Pentagon? I would love to hear you explain that one, since RealDeal will (as always) stop there, and refuse to elaborate on the obvious (and attribute it to some personal fault of mine, hahaha).

So good, let’s get into my explanation vs. yours, as to what actually hit the Pentagon, how the light poles got where they did, how all the people who directly watched the plane hit the Pentagon said what they did, how all the wreckage got there, and how all this happened in stopped morning traffic right by the highway.


Btodd

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Should I now feign outrage at your dishonesty, then?


Btodd

I wasn't dishonest about anything.