The part you skipped?:/

I didn't skip it, I just didn't quote it. Why didn't I quote it? Because it was already posted. Because I believe that guy believes what he is saying. Because I wasn't responding to the whole thing. Because it was redundant to do so.

Good thing you reposted it. Hey, repost that list of guys again, that will REALLY help convince people this time. Seriously. It will.

>snip some guy's comments on the last moments of Flight 77<

Which he then followed with this:

"My conclusion is, the maneuver looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane."

To which I replied: His whole post summed up in a few words: He doesn't think it likely that some guy he's never met and knows nothing about could fly that plane the way he did. Yet, he notes, it's possible--hell, he even says the guy could get lucky.

He also notes this: "Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. I'm sure we all would agree." The problem here is that crashyboi doesn't care if he's 50 feet off. Or 100 feet off. Or 1000 feet off. Because he doesn't care where he smashes the building. On a side. Splashing off the ground and into the building. On the roof. In one of the open spaces inside. Inside the center ring. He simply doesn't care.

As I said to Sarge, that guy didn't hit a pinpoint target painted on a specific side of the Pentagon with laser beam accuracy--all he had to do was hit ANY part of ONE OF THE LARGEST BUILDINGS IN THE WORLD. It's like hitting the side of a barn with a watermelon--well, the largest barn in the world, of course.

Regardless of that's guy's opinion, and even if we assume that pointing a plane into a building and gunning it is all that hard, unlikely things happen every day. People get lucky every day. Hell Sarge did--Bill Gates is putting money in his wallet.

Again: For anyone who actually wants to do more research, a good place to start without all the breathless hysteria and damn hell ass paranoia is Le Wiki.

EDIT: Interestingly, for someone who worries that I "skipped" something, you managed to "skip" something in your cutting and pasting. On that site you pasted from, about 2/3s of the way down the page, at the top of the part you quote, you managed to not paste this quote, "First let me say i[sic] offer no theory or speculation. I definitely do NOT offer that is was[sic] a missle,[sic] global hawk or otherwise."

So now your source says that it was not a missile, global hawk, or otherwise, and he admits that, although unlikely, crashyboi could have slapped that plane into the Pentagon.

Ouch.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

what would we expect to happen to a plane at over 500 mph?

Dunno, planes don't go 500 mph... ;)

If you look through MrGray's post from the Pilots for Truth site you'll see the figure "460 knots" several times, 460 knots > 500 mph. I stated my source when I posted the math, but if you (or anybody else) has a better figure for the approach speed, please post a link, and I'll happily redo the calculations.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Knot
wikipedia

*See: relative airspeed

.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Thanks for the charity, Bill Gate$! :)
Seriously, though ... ok, so he had trouble landing at a slow speed. But he wasn't trying to land on 9/11, was he? What do they say about his ability in flight? With nothing said, I'd venture he was either a little shaky or ok ... ? It just said he had difficulty with landing. On 9/11, a landing did not matter to him, striking The Pentagon did.
On another note, why is it my Muslim friends never said something to me along the lines of "They didn't do it"? Is someone that claims there's a cover-up by the U.S. going to tell me they've even pulled the wool over the eyes of intelligent Muslims? (My Muslim friends simply said that the hijackers were not "true" Muslims ... meaning, they had not really been following the faith truly.)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Knot
wikipedia

*See: relative airspeed

Not sure I understand what the implication of "relative airspeed" is here.

One of the points Pilots for Half Truths makes is about the altitude being wrong. Not sure how they made their assessment, but it might be from trying to be a little too clever. Here's an analysis of how the publicly available data from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) was made, note that raw FDR data was not released, rather a csv with interesting stats. It's quite plausible that the altitude in the csv is already corrected for local barometric pressure, so that lay people would not have to perform the calculations themselves.

Not sure why Pilots for Half Truths make the following observation, without providing the final FDR value for airspeed:

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the final impact speed was 530 mph. Update: FDR is now available and the 9/11 report is inaccurate in terms of impact speed.

Yes, yes the 9/11 Commision Report is inaccurate, the last value for airspeed given by the csv compiled from the FDR is 462 knots, or 531.6597841 mph, meaning the report was inaccurate by about 0.3%. I'm sure that we can all agree that this level of inaccuracy undermines the report's section on AA77.

I wonder what the precise wording in the report is? Something along the lines of "The impact speed of Flight AA77 was exactly 530 mph"? Otherwise the Pilots for Half Truths comment is more than just a little misleading.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Thanks for the charity, Bill Gate$! :)
Seriously, though ... ok, so he had trouble landing at a slow speed. But he wasn't trying to land on 9/11, was he? What do they say about his ability in flight? With nothing said, I'd venture he was either a little shaky or ok ... ? It just said he had difficulty with landing. On 9/11, a landing did not matter to him, striking The Pentagon did.
On another note, why is it my Muslim friends never said something to me along the lines of "They didn't do it"? Is someone that claims there's a cover-up by the U.S. going to tell me they've even pulled the wool over the eyes of intelligent Muslims? (My Muslim friends simply said that the hijackers were not "true" Muslims ... meaning, they had not really been following the faith truly.)

How are your Muslim friends supposed to know? They can't deny or confirm anything because they haven't looked into it just like most people. Their comments about them not being real Muslims is true in that in their religion violence is forbidden. Just like in Catholicism, but that doesn't stop some Catholics, or any religious faith members from being jackasses. Except for most Buddhists. They're pretty human. Or should I say non-human.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

bobby,

Since I posted the knot link I thought I'd put a small note in there for Sarge to keep in mind since relative airspeed affects relative ground speed.



.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

The BBC made other errors that day (as I posted a while back) saying that somebody was reporting from the Hudson when they are clearly on the Brooklyn side of the East River.

Apologies for this error on my part, I did not post the comment I was referring to on the S@H fora. I've managed to find the footage here, in which the BBC commentary states:

An amateur cameraman across the Hudson River

It's clear to me that the cameraman is across the East River, at one point you can see a power station (+12 seconds) on the fair side of the river, with one wall in shadow (north), indicating we're looking southwards. We also see a bridge (+8 seconds) across the river (also south of the cameraman). If we're looking across the Hudson the bridge must be the George Washtington (GWB) and the cameraman is much further away from the WTC than it appears.

If I were to guess I'd say the cameraman was on the riverbank at Greenpoint, from there you'd see the 14th Street power station on the far side of the river, and Williamsburg bridge to the south. From that vantage point there would not be a whole lot of high rise building between the cameraman and the WTC, whereas from north of the GWB there'd be all of midtown in the way.

The footage is a clip from the BBC's 9/11/06 review of 9/11/01 reporting.

Greenpoint is part of Brooklyn.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Thanks for the charity, Bill Gate$! :)
Seriously, though ... ok, so he had trouble landing at a slow speed. But he wasn't trying to land on 9/11, was he? What do they say about his ability in flight? With nothing said, I'd venture he was either a little shaky or ok ... ? It just said he had difficulty with landing. On 9/11, a landing did not matter to him, striking The Pentagon did.
On another note, why is it my Muslim friends never said something to me along the lines of "They didn't do it"? Is someone that claims there's a cover-up by the U.S. going to tell me they've even pulled the wool over the eyes of intelligent Muslims? (My Muslim friends simply said that the hijackers were not "true" Muslims ... meaning, they had not really been following the faith truly.)

How are your Muslim friends supposed to know? They can't deny or confirm anything because they haven't looked into it just like most people. Their comments about them not being real Muslims is true in that in their religion violence is forbidden. Just like in Catholicism, but that doesn't stop some Catholics, or any religious faith members from being jackasses. Except for most Buddhists. They're pretty human. Or should I say non-human.


.

How do you know whether they looked into it?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

bobby,

Since I posted the knot link I thought I'd put a small note in there for Sarge to keep in mind since relative airspeed affects relative ground speed.



.

Huh?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

bobby,

Since I posted the knot link I thought I'd put a small note in there for Sarge to keep in mind since relative airspeed affects relative ground speed.

Huh?

I think it's that planes measure their speed through air (airspeed) and as air is often moving, ground speed may be different, e.g. a plane heading into a 40 knot wind may read airspeed as 340 knots, relative ground speed would be 300 knots. Given the weather conditions on 9/11 I suspect the highest gust would be less than 20 mph meaning the ground speed would be over 500 mph.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

bobby,

Since I posted the knot link I thought I'd put a small note in there for Sarge to keep in mind since relative airspeed affects relative ground speed.

Huh?

I think it's that planes measure their speed through air (airspeed) and as air is often moving, ground speed may be different, e.g. a plane heading into a 40 knot wind may read airspeed as 340 knots, relative ground speed would be 300 knots. Given the weather conditions on 9/11 I suspect the highest gust would be less than 20 mph meaning the ground speed would be over 500 mph.

My point is I do not know why he is referencing me in that portion of the discussion.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

On the earlier subject of health issues affecting those that worked in the WTC area following the attacks:

Bloomberg Testifies to Congress About 9/11 Health
WNYC Newsroom

NEW YORK, NY July 31, 2008 —Mayor Michael Bloomberg testified before Congress today in support of a bill that would create a program to treat workers and residents with long-term health problems caused by the 9/11 attacks. He noted that caring for those injured should be a national responsibility.

BLOOMBERG: Passing this bill would at long last fully engage the federal government in resolving the health challenges created by the attack on our entire nation that took place on September 11th.

REPORTER: Bloomberg said that the city plans to spend about $100 million on Ground Zero-related health problems in the next three years.

From http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/104912

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

On the earlier subject of what hit WTC 2 here's a very compelling case in favor of it being UA Flight 175.

Here's footage of the WTC 2 collision from a block south of the office I used to work in. Note the building to the far right is WTC 7, debris appears to fly over the top of this tower.

WARNING: the next link is to video in which several expletives may be heard. Here at +1:25 you can see where some of the debris landed, note this is on West Broadway, north of WTC 7.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

One of the "issues" with the testimony of Barry Jennings taken up by the Truthers, is where he talks about stepping over what he believed to be dead bodies in the area of the WTC 7 lobby. This is mentioned in the BBC program that kicked off this thread, and is noteworthy because in the official "story", none of the people working in WTC 7 were supposed to have died on that day as a result of the attack.

I say he believed he was stepping over dead bodies, because he says he did not look at what he was stepping over (at the direction of his rescuer). It's possible that he was not stepping over dead bodies at all. But say that he was, does this mean that the official "story" is wrong?

WARNING: the video in the paragraph is graphic. At about +30 second in this video you'll hear a fire worker request that the lobby of 7 be used as a triage area. Could it be that some of those taken from WTC 1 and 2 did not survive and were left in the rush to leave the area when the buildings started to fall?

In that same video you hear some of the sounds of the jumpers, this footage has been cut up by the Truthers to suggest there were explosives in the area, as the sound is very similar. So similar that I'd suggest it is plausible some people thought they heard secondary explosions. The fire officers that knew what was happening are clearly not in fear of being near a secondary explosion, but are also clearly distressed by what they are witnessing.

In the 911 thread two years ago I said a joking comment about the jumpers almost justified being reported to the mods, watch this and you may understand where I was coming from.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

this conversation should end

this conversation should end

Why? Because MrGray appears to have given up in light of evidence? Don't you worry, he'll be back with the same stuff in a year or two hoping we've all forgotten things like "pull" and planes being pulverized when impacting with concrete at 500 + mph

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Keep on hoping bobby,

Too much left to cover to just disappear, taking such light fire as you and Rush have supplied. Time is short for me and I am making the best of it. It's the weekend! Get some sun for the love of Pete.

Finally cooling off here in California. Time for some yard work and BBQ.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

this conversation should end

Why? Because MrGray appears to have given up in light of evidence? Don't you worry, he'll be back with the same stuff in a year or two hoping we've all forgotten things like "pull" and planes being pulverized when impacting with concrete at 500 + mph

no, you started drag dead people who jumped, and it was not necessary
to proof or not that the sounds of explosion were falling people,
subject was tower 7, and i have not seen any evidence planes being
"pulverized", and do not mention youtube video, cause that did not prove anything, we don´t know even if it exist in real life at all.

this conversation should end

Why? Because MrGray appears to have given up in light of evidence? Don't you worry, he'll be back with the same stuff in a year or two hoping we've all forgotten things like "pull" and planes being pulverized when impacting with concrete at 500 + mph

no, you started drag dead people who jumped, and it was not necessary
to proof or not that the sounds of explosion were falling people,
subject was tower 7, and i have not seen any evidence planes being
"pulverized", and do not mention youtube video, cause that did not prove anything, we don´t know even if it exist in real life at all.

I gave fair warning. There are some things in life that none of us should have to witness. I posted the link as evidence of a plausible explanation for Barry's report of stepping over bodies in the lobby of WTC7 and also as as a plausible explanation for reports of secondary explosions (of which there are a few) that Truthers suggest are evidence of a controlled demolition. The subject is no longer WTC 7.

If the link Rush provided of a plane being smashed into a concrete barrier does not meet you criteria for evidence, please tell us what does.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...