American facing extradition from Argentina for murder

[perry]

Gunt your posts are very clear and easy to understand . There are some that try to confuse the issue and they make no sense .

 

[orwellian]

I'd give it up. What are you saying now an inexperienced pilot could hit the WTC and not the Pentagon?

No I believe he is saying it's easier to hit a horizontal target (like a high rise building), than it it to hit a wide one (like a 3 story building).

"Conspiracy theorists in my humble opinion show disrespect to the poor innocents that died for no reason."

You're supposed to question your government. Constant vigilance, ring a bell?

 

[gouchobob]

Read my posts and you will understand my position. I am a pilot.

Well I spend years in the aviation industry with one of the major airlines. I know many professional pilots and the ones I've talked to never had any doubts a pilot even an inexperienced could hit the Pentagon. Just go back to WWII and the inexperienced Kamikaze pilots. They were able to make hundreds of hits on much smaller moving targets while being shot at. Another guy hit another building in Texas not long ago. I don't think you are professional pilot and are clearly wrong in your opinion.

If people want to waste their time on these pointless discussions of ridiculous conspiracy theories let them have at it. I will try to refrain from interjecting reason and logic into the discussion as it's clear most of these people are not interested or incapable of rational thought.

 

[gunt86]

... I don't think you are professional pilot and are clearly wrong in your opinion.

would you consider a military pilot to be a professional pilot? or must I fly commercially to be considered professional in your eyes?

 

[NoPat]

Ah, the zany world of the Internet: I was a head of state till not long ago. Why believe it? Because I say so here, so it's true, right?

Before that I was a CEO of a major multinational for a number of decades. It's all written here by me, so you better bet it's all real

 

[gouchobob]

would you consider a military pilot to be a professional pilot? or must I fly commercially to be considered professional in your eyes?

What types of models did you fly, the little ones attached by wires to the plastic control handle in your hand, or the more sophisticated radio control jobs?

 

[French jurist]

Anyway, back to the OP, the guy's claims are quite stupid (conspiracy theory and so on).
And of course the terrorist were flying the planes (phone calls made from the planes for example).
I can understand Gouchobob (conspiracy theories vs. victims), but I can understand Günther as well (obviously crashing a plane into the Pentagon after a perfect approach -plane arrived horizontally as can be seen on the stills from the CCTV- was more delicate than crashing into the WTC).

 

[orwellian]

Well I spend years in the aviation industry with one of the major airlines. I know many professional pilots and the ones I've talked to never had any doubts a pilot even an inexperienced could hit the Pentagon.

Well now you have just talked to one that HAS doubts. But you will probably just continue telling everyone the above anyways.

Just go back to WWII and the inexperienced Kamikaze pilots. They were able to make hundreds of hits on much smaller moving targets while being shot at.

So comparing WTC7 to other high rise buildings is wrong because WTC7 had minor damage to the facade. But comparing a dive bomber to a Boeing 747 is valid, right?

If people want to waste their time on these pointless discussions of ridiculous conspiracy theories let them have at it. I will try to refrain from interjecting reason and logic into the discussion as it's clear most of these people are not interested or incapable of rational thought.

And you're doing what right now? And the theory of the bearded man pulling this off from a cave in Afghanistan using men with box cutters is not ridiculous to you? And the "reason" you bring to this discussion is your attempt to explain how a person who had problems flying a Cessna aircraft could hit the Pentagon the way he did with a Boeing 747? Try harder.

 

[French jurist]

Well now you have just talked to one that HAS doubts. But you will probably just continue telling everyone the above anyways.



So comparing WTC7 to other high rise buildings is wrong because WTC7 had minor damage to the facade. But comparing a dive bomber to a Boeing 747 is valid, right?



And you're doing what right now? And the theory of the bearded man pulling this off from a cave in Afghanistan using men with box cutters is not ridiculous to you? And the "reason" you bring to this discussion is your attempt to explain how a person who had problems flying a Cessna aircraft could hit the Pentagon the way he did with a Boeing 747? Try harder.

Orwellian, with all due respect, this pertains to conspiracy theories which is -in my sole opinion- damaging.
No 747 was involved (it's not what you meant, ok). WTC7 had a misconception (rivets exploded, fire could not be extinguished since the sprinklers did not work because the water canalizations got damaged).
Though yes, WTC7 may have housed some important services in the underground.

Anyway I guess the discussion won't go any further and that's too bad because the only tangible element in this tragedy is to try to understand why the US intelligence didn't work somehow (who can deny that btw).
Was it deliberate or not is the only clever question, in my own sense of cleverness.

I have too another question (tangible elements) : there was a very unusual speculation on the stock exchange (put/calls ratio) before 9/11. This speculation focused on insurers and US airlines (100% proven).
What emerged of the enquiry ? I remember the trading companies through which orders were placed got identified, but the question is : who got the profits ?

And no, ok yes they were bearded men, but not in a cave. Bin Laden comes from a very wealthy family (more than wealthy) and worked for the CIA for many many years (USSR Afghan war, etc..).

 

[Lucas]

Even for a good pilot, it is much much easier to center the plane horizontally relative to a runway than it is to achieve vertical precision at a given distance. This is partly why runways are long but not wide! What i mean by vertical precision relative at a given distance is, can the pilot have the wheels touch down at exactly a predetermine linear distance on the runway, say at 100 yards past the start of the runway. That is near impossible to do for any rookie pilot. There is this little thing called the wind which makes vertical precision very difficult. In pilot training there is a procedure called Short Take Off and Landing. Half of that procedure involves trying to land the aircraft within the first third of the runway. It is very difficult for most rookies. AND that is with a leeway of 1/3 of the runway!! Imagine if it was only a few feet with an aircraft you had no experience with.

There is something else about landing a plane that makes this all even more difficult. On approach the pilot is angled towards ground while trying to maintain a certain speed (too fast and he overshoots, too slow and he loses control in a stall). At about 20 feet (for a Cessna 172), the pilot rotates the angle of approach to zero and makes the plane fly parallel to the runway, all the while letting the speed decrease by ever increasing the nose of the aircraft upward. This is called flaring. We can assume that the alleged pilot of the attack did not attempt to flair, but instead made an abrupt change in the angle of approach from say 25 degrees downward to zero at exactly 20 feet or so above the ground, AND then he maintained this vertical distance with the ground (altitude) for a mile or so until hitting exactly inside the 77 foot target with his 44 foot arrow. And all of this happened at speeds in excess of 150 knots/hour. In order to maintain this 20 foot elevation about the ground the pilot has to have exactly the correct power setting on the engine, too little and aircraft loses altitude, too much and the aircraft rises. That is very advanced flying technique. And to make matters worse, even if he could read a 'glass cockpit', the elevation figures would not be very precise as this area is not a runway. And that assumes that the pilot had tuned into the local airport to get the current MSL/barometric pressure figures and entered them successfully into the instruments within the 15 minutes before landing.

I will give you a little example of how hard it is to land an aircraft you are not familiar with. I had been flying for quite a while when i decided to train for a seaplane permit. Seaplanes stand much higher from the 'ground' because of the height of the pontoon assembly. When i tried to make my first landing, i underestimated my vertical distance from the water when i entered the flare. I thought my pontoons were about 20 feet above the water when in fact i was probably 40 or more. It's just hard to figure out when so many things are happening inside the cockpit. And you know that if you let the pontoons touch the water when you are still in approach angle, then the plane will flip over head first and kill you. So you underestimate the vertical distance. Because i entered my flare at 40 feet, when i finally lost enough speed during the flare for my tail to land, the tail fell about 20 feet in a second. Quite a hard landing and very stressful on the pontoons. Would have been even worse on the aircraft if it was a wheeled plane on tarmac.

Been a rookie pilot myself I'll go along with all that part theory and facts and also agree that the 6-11 was somehow planed and executed with utterly precision to produce a trigger for something else afterwards, now the 1 million dollar (each) questions are:

If the pilots were rookies which apparently and according with the official versions they were and if for technical and expertise reason, not enough training etc. were unable to hit those targets.

Who were the real pilots behind the commands?..the original pilots of the aircraft committing suicide and a crime? would you throw yourself under a train even is someone is behind you pointing a gun to your head? I doubt it, death for death you will fight for your life.

If all these situations and hypothesis are not credible and impossible to contemplate or even accept then WHO or WHAT was piloting these aircraft?... remote control?..... computers on board with all the data programmed to fly the 'missiles' to the target?...actually this could very well be an option.

If all this was possible and actually it is, how many people was involved on this? it must be huge, covering a number of people with diverse skills and training, how do you keep a sealed lid and a totally secret on all this? how can that be possible so no one can or will find out.
I could possible understand the JFK and brother Bob or MLK assassinations and even Diana-Dody 'accident' because of the reduced number of people involved in those cases, but on this scale is simple mind-blowing and impossible to belive.

But if this is overwhelming complex to accept and comprehend then it will be possible as well to dupe everyone else that it is real thing, the mind will not accept anything else of this magnitude therefore "The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed" Joseph Goebbels.