Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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
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.
RealDealNeverStop said: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!
RealDealNeverStop said: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.
RealDealNeverStop said:You have absolutely no evidence hanjour had a gps but keep pretending your conjecture carries any weight.
RealDealNeverStop said: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.
RealDealNeverStop said:Quite amazing Hanjour only had a 20% chance of hitting that section.
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.
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!!!!
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.
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.
RealDealNeverStop said:You ask for a better explanation of the turn so I gave one. No worries, I knew you wouldn't acknowledge it.
RealDealNeverStop said:Stick to your lol....some dude bought gps units so hanjour had one! Lol...
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.
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.
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
ManFromUncle said: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."
ManFromUncle said: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.
ManFromUncle said:It is not based on data
ManFromUncle said:The crash logic was disabled; The over-speed warnings were disabled
ManFromUncle said: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.
ManFromUncle said:Where is the aircraft debris from the Pentagon crash?
ManFromUncle said: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.
ManFromUncle said:– 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."
ManFromUncle said: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.
ManFromUncle said:There you go again, saying unless we know what did happen, we can't say what could not have.
Should I now feign outrage at your dishonesty, then?
Btodd
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?