manxchatterbox Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 but wasn't it a UFO that was brought down by the close air defence system that crashed into the Pentagon?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovenotfear Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 but wasn't it a UFO that was brought down by the close air defence system that crashed into the Pentagon?? Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. "Ridicule is the tribute that mediocrity pays to genius" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 On the previous page is a link to a sequence of frames of the 757 going into the Pentagon. Would anybody have a 'still' of the first frame - of the aircraft before impact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 On the previous page is a link to a sequence of frames of the 757 going into the Pentagon. Would anybody have a 'still' of the first frame - of the aircraft before impact? Its a photo shop fake! The security cameras take one image every half a second. At that frame rate the 757 is flying into the pentagon at 30 miles per hour! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Thanks for that info - in that case does anybody have a shot of the 757 prior to impact. the only shots I have seen are those of a fireball - which could have been made by anything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovenotfear Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Thanks for that info - in that case does anybody have a shot of the 757 prior to impact. the only shots I have seen are those of a fireball - which could have been made by anything! Don`t hold your breath if your waiting on a still of a "757". You may be waiting an awful long time Hope this helps lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crozza Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 No-one cares anymore. Everyone had a vote and decided that the New World Order doesn't actually sound that bad. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Cockpit of a Cessna 172 Cockpit of a Boeing 757 I mean, there are similarities - two seats, two of them stick thingies,etc.. I can fly a 767 - clickey - although I do admit that the checkerboard approach to the old Kai Tak was giving me problems at times.. Pic1 Pic2 Pic3 Pic4 ...one heck of a turn, that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombay Bad Boy Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Pah! I've flown the Learjet under the Golden Gate Bridge, inverted, and I've landed the Cessna across the width of the Carrier B) It's a shame the plane-plane interaction is so crude, I'd have tried to land the Cessna on an A380 And in other news, When pilots play chicken.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovenotfear Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 No-one cares anymore. Everyone had a vote and decided that the New World Order doesn't actually sound that bad. Sorry. I take it you know the founder member of The NWO was a nice fellow by the name of Adolf Hitler? "doesn't actually sound that bad". Hmm, god help us or should that read Bush! "Ridicule is the tribute that mediocrity pays to genius" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." We'll that terrorist did, whoever he was. Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. He didn't have to land it, he just had to crash it. "The FBI has determined that some of the terrorists bought life-size training posters of the inside of Boeing cockpits from a flying shop in Ohio. The posters - priced at $39.95 - show the exact locations of controls and detail the view the pilots would have from the Boeing 767s. Pilots use the posters for training."- Guardian HAHAHA!! Oh yes, that made me laugh as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 I take it you know the founder member of The NWO was a nice fellow by the name of Adolf Hitler?"doesn't actually sound that bad". You know, before now I just thought this conspiracy stuff was down to cicuitously thinking mentals so terrified of the unpredictability and complexity of the world and their own insignificance within that world that they felt compelled to contrive links between all major events and whatever convenient symbol for evil came to hand. But I'm all turned round on the matter now you've said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Crozza, in your own post you admit Hanjour had been flying since 1996 and that he'd upgraded to flying 737's on simulator, you also quote [ex-commercial pilot Russ] Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying." So Hanjour had experience on the sophisticated computerized controls standardized by Boeing. So why do you then post pictures of a cessna's control panel ... it makes you look very niave and blinkered. Hanjour didn't need to feel comfortable flying, he didn't have to be a good pilot; he had to disconect the auto pilot, turn off the transponder and fly it into the ground. He nearly messed that up going in so low he clipped the street lights. "That turn" was an out of control turn that any sane pilot wouldn't have attempted cos it could rip the wings off ... but guess what Hanjour didn't care! Also I totally agree with you that Atta didn't behave like a fundamentalist in America ... but he very much did so in Hamburg, or are you disputing that too? You have heard the concept of "deep cover" haven't you. I've known and travelled to the US with ultra religious Saudis, they've got a strange attitude to the place, they see it as absolutely corrupt and decadent and are only willing to accept and see the seedy, negative side of it. Upright, religious, moral middle America doesn't exist for them: its all porn stars, drug addicts and crack gangs. But they are fascinated by that seedy side and want to go to strip joints etc ... its titilating for them and confirms their assumptions. 19 fundamentalists who claim they've got a get out of Hell card told to go under deep cover in the US ... Oh yes I'd imagine they'd go to strip joints and do all the dirty deeds they could think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prawn cocktail Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Sorry for butting in but I don't have timeto read all the posts but i will do sometime. The thing is right. if you had not been told about 9/11 onthe TV or newspapers or whatever. What real difference would it have made to your lives? I know that is hardly possible but if you think about it and all the people who die inthe world in africa and stuff every day and in wars that are going on but we dont seem to care about, then compare and would it make any diference to you? Have ypu starved since 9/11? or has any of your rel;atives been killed because of it? or your own life cut short ?or even someone you know. There really are lots more important things to be coscerned about in our lives. get over it because you cant and certainly havent made an iota of difference despite the whole UK (and IoM) keep talking about it. Even Tony Blair should have just got on with running the uk rather than pamper to USA. 9/11 was just a few days of eye candy for a couple of days onthe TV. Full stop. But there again maybe I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.