Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The "descending 330° spiral" being "almost impossible" is nonsense. Tex Johnston barrel-rolled the 707 prototype (a plane with a significantly worse thrust-weight ratio [4.75/1, vs the 757's 2.93/1]) in 1955.

100 words or less sound byte:

Not to argue with your hypothesis, Thump, that test pilot Johnston's barrel roll is proof Hani Hanjour could execute a spiral descent from 7000 feet at an estimated speed of 530 mph, hitting a target with a 33-foot margin of error.  Even though HH could not be trusted behind the controls of a single engine Cessna, after all, he did have at least 46 minutes of flight time experience at the controls of a four-engine passenger jet.  Just think of all the practice dives he could have under his belt by that time.

Do you believe your own claims?

Well, that's a nice straw-man.  Pity that's not what I said.  I said that Johnston's barrel-roll is evidence that a 757 (a stronger plane, with a better power ratio and better maneuverability) could make the much easier  maneuver of a descending spiral.  See, here's what you had written:

And yet he managed to pull off a decending 330 degree spiral in a 757 which pilots having hundreds of hours flight experience in 757 class planes say is impossible even for the most skilled pilot.

Clearly you are claiming that "even the most experienced pilot" would find this maneuver impossible.  When I point out that it is routinely accomplished at West Coast airports (albeit  at lower speeds, but from much higher altitudes), you appeal to HH's inexperience.  Was he an awful pilot?  I don't know.  But the fact is, you've made so many fanciful claims that I don't believe you, and won't take you at your word. What I did do is show that an experienced pilot could barrel-roll a plane much more difficult to handle: no computers on a 707!

The evidence that I'm right and you're wrong about 757s doing spirals is to be found at LAX, SFO, Tenerife, Toncontin and numerous other airports around the world.  

Here, go to 3:20 for a good shot of the plane's low-speed maneuverability.  


[youtube:lnzi376u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3OyhU8rftk[/youtube:lnzi376u]

Then remember that in a 7000' descent, you've got gravity working with you.  Tell me, what were the throttle settings on the planes which struck the towers?

Sorry I exceeded 100 words, but I trust you'll be able to cope.

[stromboli]

Forget it, Thump. The skull is too thick on this one.

[AtheistMoFo]

As this post will address issues raised by Thupalumpcus, it will necessarily exceed the sound byte size.  So all of you who can not handle posts of greater than 100 words please skip this one.  And feel free to criticize it without reading anyway, as many of you often do.

See, here's what you had written:

And yet he managed to pull off a decending 330 degree spiral in a 757 which pilots having hundreds of hours flight experience in 757 class planes say is impossible even for the most skilled pilot.

You are correct, Thump.  I stand corrected.  What I intended to say was:
"And yet he managed to pull off a decending 330 degree spiral [insert] from 7000 feet [/insert] in a 757[insert], enter ground effect doing 460 knots, and still manage to hit a target with a 33 foot margin of error [/insert] which pilots having hundreds of hours flight experience in 757 class planes say is [strike] [s:2jedxoiy]impossible[/s:2jedxoiy] [/strike] [insert] extremely difficult [/insert] even for the most skilled pilot."  I apologize for my error and stand by my corrected version.

...you appeal to HH's inexperience. Was he an awful pilot? I don't know. But the fact is, you've made so many fanciful claims that I don't believe you, and won't take you at your word.

Nor would I expect you to take my word for it.  After all, neither would I take your word for anything.  Please google it.  See what the instructors at flight schools HH attended have to say about his skills.  And the rental companies who refused to rent out their Cessnas to him.

Here, go to 3:20 for a good shot of the plane's low-speed maneuverability.

How does low-speed maneuverability fit into the picture when the plane was estimated to be moving at 530 knots and a few feet off the ground when it crashed into the building?

Tell me, what were the throttle settings on the planes which struck the towers?

Tell me, why are the throttle settings of the planes that struck the towers relevant to Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of the 757 that flew into the Pentagon?  If you really want to know, look it up yourself.  But the throttles of A77 allgedly being piloted by HH had been advanced to maximum power when the plane crashed into the Pentagon at an estimated 530 mph.

[Insult to Rocks]

As this post will address issues raised by Thupalumpcus, it will necessarily exceed the sound byte size.  So all of you who can not handle posts of greater than 100 words please skip this one.  And feel free to criticize it without reading anyway, as many of you often do.

Can you knock off your ridiculous condescension? Seriously, this conversation wouldn't be anywhere near as frustrating if you weren't acting so childish.
And though this is most likely the tenth or so time I've pointed this out, it still needs to be said. I'll try and ask more politely.
If we assume your theory is correct, how do you account for the attack on the Pentagon, as well as the destruction of flight 93?

[Sargon The Grape]

As this post will address issues raised by Thupalumpcus, it will necessarily exceed the sound byte size.  So all of you who can not handle posts of greater than 100 words please skip this one.  And feel free to criticize it without reading anyway, as many of you often do.

Can you knock off your ridiculous condescension? Seriously, this conversation wouldn't be anywhere near as frustrating if you weren't acting so childish.
And though this is most likely the tenth or so time I've pointed this out, it still needs to be said. I'll try and ask more politely.
If we assume your theory is correct, how do you account for the attack on the Pentagon, as well as the destruction of flight 93?

Well obviously the Pentagon was hit by a missile, because you can see it on video camera. Not like those planes you saw hitting the Twin Towers: those were holograms perfectly synchronized with timed demolition charges.

Flight 93 actually wasn't related to the other attacks, they just happened to put PCP into the plane's air circulation by mistake that day.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Dude, it was all bees.

[Jason78]

I don't want to derail this train wreck of a thread, but...

would you give up your fantasy about cave-dwelling arab muslim jihadists doing it on their own?

Seriously.   Do you actually believe that those aircraft hijackings weren't carried out by a bunch of pissed off muslim jihadists?

[josephpalazzo]

I don't want to derail this train wreck of a thread, but...

would you give up your fantasy about cave-dwelling arab muslim jihadists doing it on their own?

Seriously.   Do you actually believe that those aircraft hijackings weren't carried out by a bunch of pissed off muslim jihadists?

Blasphemy. Those muslim jihadists weren't pissed off, they were obeying Allah's will, pbuh.

[Solitary]

#-o      Solitary

[Insult to Rocks]

Solitary, don't you know never to eat popcorn while laughing? It's dangerous! You might choke on a kernel!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Tell me, why are the throttle settings of the planes that struck the towers relevant to Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of the 757 that flew into the Pentagon?  If you really want to know, look it up yourself.  But the throttles of A77 allgedly being piloted by HH had been advanced to maximum power when the plane crashed into the Pentagon at an estimated 530 mph.

What does the Pentagon crashing have to do with WTC 7?

[AtheistMoFo]

Can you knock off your ridiculous condescension? Seriously, this conversation wouldn't be anywhere near as frustrating if you weren't acting so childish.

Ridiculous condescension?  At the risk of being accused of racism again, isn't that a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

And though this is most likely the tenth or so time I've pointed this out, it still needs to be said. I'll try and ask more politely.
If we assume your theory is correct, how do you account for the attack on the Pentagon, as well as the destruction of flight 93?

What about the Pentagon and flight 93?  According to advocates of the "no conspiracy theory," those would have to have been isolated events.  Seems pretty unlikely to me, but that is what the "no conspracy" theorists are saying.  (See Hijiri Byakuren's post above.)

Be specific.  What is your question?

[AtheistMoFo]

Seriously. Do you actually believe that those aircraft hijackings weren't carried out by a bunch of pissed off muslim jihadists?

Seriously, is anybody going to listen to what I say instead of what you think I said?

What I believe is that a bunch of pissed off muslim jihadists must have had a little help from some unknown number of people holding key positions.

Either that, or the whole thing may have been planned by persons in the United States who set up the bunch of pissed off muslim jihadists to take the fall.  A crime of that magnitude is not going to be ignored.  So if you plan a crime of that magnitude, you obviously need to frame some patsy.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Can you knock off your ridiculous condescension? Seriously, this conversation wouldn't be anywhere near as frustrating if you weren't acting so childish.

Ridiculous condescension?  At the risk of being accused of racism again, isn't that a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

And though this is most likely the tenth or so time I've pointed this out, it still needs to be said. I'll try and ask more politely.
If we assume your theory is correct, how do you account for the attack on the Pentagon, as well as the destruction of flight 93?

What about the Pentagon and flight 93?  According to advocates of the "no conspiracy theory," those would have to have been isolated events.  Seems pretty unlikely to me, but that is what the "no conspracy" theorists are saying.  (See Hijiri Byakuren's post above.)

Be specific.  What is your question?

It should be noted that those whom you are calling "no conspiracy" theorists actually think that there was a conspiracy, which encompasses 93 and the Pentagon strike as well as WTC.

The difference is that some conspiracies are more believable than others.

[Sargon The Grape]

Seems pretty unlikely to me, but that is what the "no conspracy" theorists are saying.  (See Hijiri Byakuren's post above.)

Did you just use what was obviously a joke on my part to say that "this is what [we] really think"? Look, I already knew you're dumber than a sack of rocks before you said that, but... really? Really!?