I've Seen the Light

[candycorn]

*Ahem*

Let me handle this one, Candycorn. I've been itchin' to try out my Debwunker skills.

The fact that it's admittedly "very hard" to pull off is what interests me. It's very hard for someone with experience in that type of aircraft. Hanjour had zero experience but managed to pull off something damn near impossible.

Look, Moron, "damn near impossible" doesn't equate to impossible. However improbable it seems (to you) that a novice was able to pull off a maneuver that several experienced pilots have openly admitted they'd never even consider trying, facts are facts.

Yes. The fact is that those "several experienced pilots" want to live to see the next day. Hani Hanjour didn't have any such proclivity.

We know what happened (flight 77 hit the Pentagon squarely in the budget analyst's office), and we know what MUST have transpired in the cockpit in order for that to have happened (a novice pilot pulled off what would have been an absolutely amazing maneuver for the best of the best pilots in the world).

If he had lived, he would have, in fact, "pulled [it] off". But you may recall, he died.

In other words, because we know that the former happened and that the former was contingent on the latter, we also know that the latter MUST have happened. It's simple logic: if A is contingent on B, then A having been the case entails that B must have also been the case -->prior to A. -- Duh.

We know Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Yes. It wasn't a missile or anything like that. Great. We also know Hani Hanjour was at the controls.

As for the budget analyst office being the target; making the claim that somehow it was a "hit" carried out with a jumbo jet is silly.

Besides, maybe Allah had a hand in it. And before you say anything about that, I think it's only fair to warn you that any religious bigotry on your part will not be seen as a valid refutation of this point.

Well the guy turned the yoke and crashed into the building. I doubt Allah had a hand in it.

Now, take your tinfoil-dunce-cap-wearing ass over to the corner and have a seat on the stool until the bell rings for recess -- 'cuz you've just been schooled!

In your dreams perhaps.

This is your story: To get rid of some bean counters, "someone" had a plane hijacked and crashed into a building. Yeah, and you wonder why you're as well respected as the bearded lady, lobster boy, and the other freaks in the circus.

 

[whitehall]

A conspiracy has to have an underlying purpose or even an imagined purpose and the conclusion has to be a little bit reasonable. Nothing about the 9-11 conspiracy makes sense. What would Americans have to gain by destroying the symbol of capitalism and killing 3,000 people? How could it happen through several administrations? We saw the planes hit the towers. We know that jihad extremists hijacked the planes from evidence gained after the attack and by transcripts from the planes. The same nut case jihadists tried it in the early 90's.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo2ONxMIIl8]George Bush 2OO1 speech revisited - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Cammmpbell]

The brow beatings I've endured here and elsewhere for defending/advocating completely ridiculous ideas concerning the events of 9/11/01 have taken their toll, and I've decided to fall in line with the most reasonable account put forth to date:

9/11: A Conspiracy Theory - YouTube

To my fellow Twoofers: I suggest that you follow suit and lay aside the nonsense regarding things like the laws of physics, the abundance of physical and circumstantial evidence, and anything else that might remotely contradict the official story. The most important thing to remember about 9/11 is this: no matter why or how it actually happened, it's at the root of America's global dominance and financial stability today, both of which I'm sure all would agree are at all-time highs! Forget about the damning implications; let's all just let it go ...like a good little flock, and enjoy the rewards.

Yeah....the 19 dead Saudi hijackers and the crash in the field in PA kinda hinder the effort.

Not to mention records of their training here in America to learn how to fly specific commercial airliners.

 

[Capstone]

This is somewhat embarrassing, Candycorn.

You see, my irrefutable logic was offered in response to one of Paulie's points; and now you (a fellow Debwunker) have gone and gummed up the works by taking issue with my Pro-OCTA reasoning.

Clearly, we need to straighten out our story and come to a consensus before taking on any more of these Twoofer nutters.

The fact is that those "several experienced pilots" want to live to see the next day. Hani Hanjour didn't have any such proclivity.

The absence of any fear of death is to a highly technical and EXTREMLY difficult aviation maneuver as fishing poles are to skiing. We're talking about the maneuver itself (an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground); not the end result (crashing into a predetermined target as opposed to landing on a predetermined airstrip).

If he had lived, he would have, in fact, "pulled [it] off". But you may recall, he died.

Sorry, but the fact he died as a result of hitting his intended target would be indicative of nothing more clearly than his successful execution of the necessary maneuver. Death (his own and others) was his goal. Or to put it in your terms: had he lived, he would, in fact, NOT have "pulled [it] off".

We know Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Yes. It wasn't a missile or anything like that. Great. We also know Hani Hanjour was at the controls. [...] As for the budget analyst office being the target; making the claim that somehow it was a "hit" carried out with a jumbo jet is silly.

As far as Hani's amazing flying skills were concerned, it's enough to know that the Pentagon was the target, period. Granted, coming in nose-down at an angle anywhere on the roof might have been a little easier, since it would have circumvented the need to come exactly level with the ground prior to hitting the bullseye, but the need for an 8,000 FT. descending 270 degree corkscrew turn would have remained intact.

Well the guy turned the yoke and crashed into the building. I doubt Allah had a hand in it.

So, you doubt that Allah had a hand in the successful execution of HIS Jihadist's mission, eh?

On what grounds, other than religious bigotry, might that doubt be based?

Hani's probably looking down and laughing his ass off at you ...while his 70 virgins are taking turns on his dong.

This is your story: To get rid of some bean counters, "someone" had a plane hijacked and crashed into a building. Yeah, and you wonder why you're as well respected as the bearded lady, lobster boy, and the other freaks in the circus.

Hey, that's not my story!

I'm a Debwunker like you, remember?

The fact that the bean counter's office was destroyed along with some egghead accountants the day after 2.3 trillion dollars had gone missing ...is just a coincidence -- one of MANY according to the OCT.

 

[candycorn]

This is somewhat embarrassing, Candycorn.

I'm sure you're used to being embarrassed.

You see, my irrefutable logic was offered in response to one of Paulie's points; and now you (a fellow Debwunker) have gone and gummed up the works by taking issue with my Pro-OCTA reasoning.

yeah...giggle...okay.

Clearly, we need to straighten out our story and come to a consensus before taking on any more of these Twoofer nutters.

Now I can see why you are embarrassed often.

The fact is that those "several experienced pilots" want to live to see the next day. Hani Hanjour didn't have any such proclivity.

The absence of any fear of death is to a highly technical and EXTREMLY difficult aviation maneuver as fishing poles are to skiing. We're talking about the maneuver itself (an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground); not the end result (crashing into a predetermined target as opposed to landing on a predetermined airstrip).

Quit making an ass of yourself. If you can't walk away from the maneuver, you're not going to do the maneuver. Physically it is possible since, and you agree, AA77 hit the building and didn't break up on approach.

If he had lived, he would have, in fact, "pulled [it] off". But you may recall, he died.

Sorry, but the fact he died as a result of hitting his intended target would be indicative of nothing more clearly than his successful execution of the necessary maneuver. Death (his own and others) was his goal. Or to put it in your terms: had he lived, he would, in fact, NOT have "pulled [it] off".

Again, for your own sake, quit making an ass of yourself. "Pulling it off" is the standard, not the goal. "Pulling it off" is defined, 100% of the time as getting away with whatever caper you are undertaking. You brought the term up; not me crapstone. Feel free to walk it back.

As far as Hani's amazing flying skills were concerned, it's enough to know that the Pentagon was the target, period. Granted, coming in nose-down at an angle anywhere on the roof might have been a little easier, since it would have circumvented the need to come exactly level with the ground prior to hitting the bullseye, but the need for an 8,000 FT. descending 270 degree corkscrew turn would have remained intact.

Okay.

Well the guy turned the yoke and crashed into the building. I doubt Allah had a hand in it.

So, you doubt that Allah had a hand in the successful execution of HIS Jihadist's mission, eh?

Yes.

On what grounds, other than religious bigotry, might that doubt be based?

Deities do not make persons do things. Christ, no more than Allah.

Hani's probably looking down and laughing his ass off at you ...while his 70 virgins are taking turns on his dong.

Cool; I always pictured him looking up at me.

This is your story: To get rid of some bean counters, "someone" had a plane hijacked and crashed into a building. Yeah, and you wonder why you're as well respected as the bearded lady, lobster boy, and the other freaks in the circus.

Hey, that's not my story!

I'm a Debwunker like you, remember?

Again, you should really consider ceasing to make an ass of yourself.

The fact that the bean counter's office was destroyed along with some egghead accountants the day after 2.3 trillion dollars had gone missing ...is just a coincidence -- one of MANY according to the OCT.

The $2.3T was not missing; it was unaccounted for and Rumsfeld (who was in the building that was hit by a plane) was announcing a new data collection program that was going to change that. You're thinly veiled moronic gambit falls well short of the facts at hand.

Again, we all know why you're embarrassed so often.

 

[Cammmpbell]

This is somewhat embarrassing, Candycorn.

I'm sure you're used to being embarrassed.

You see, my irrefutable logic was offered in response to one of Paulie's points; and now you (a fellow Debwunker) have gone and gummed up the works by taking issue with my Pro-OCTA reasoning.

yeah...giggle...okay.


Now I can see why you are embarrassed often.




Quit making an ass of yourself. If you can't walk away from the maneuver, you're not going to do the maneuver. Physically it is possible since, and you agree, AA77 hit the building and didn't break up on approach.



Again, for your own sake, quit making an ass of yourself. "Pulling it off" is the standard, not the goal. "Pulling it off" is defined, 100% of the time as getting away with whatever caper you are undertaking. You brought the term up; not me crapstone. Feel free to walk it back.


Okay.




Yes.


Deities do not make persons do things. Christ, no more than Allah.


Cool; I always pictured him looking up at me.

Hey, that's not my story!

I'm a Debwunker like you, remember?

Again, you should really consider ceasing to make an ass of yourself.

The fact that the bean counter's office was destroyed along with some egghead accountants the day after 2.3 trillion dollars had gone missing ...is just a coincidence -- one of MANY according to the OCT.

The $2.3T was not missing; it was unaccounted for and Rumsfeld (who was in the building that was hit by a plane) was announcing a new data collection program that was going to change that. You're thinly veiled moronic gambit falls well short of the facts at hand.

Again, we all know why you're embarrassed so often.

Within an hour of the Pentagon being struck Rumsfeld had instructed his staff to plan an attack strategy for Iraq. That whole bunch had been trying to get an excuse to attack Iraq for years. If you doubt it read this letter to Clinton:

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

 

[Capstone]

Candycorn,

I'm going to disregard the fluff and go straight for the jugular.

I hope you don't mind.

[...]If you can't walk away from the maneuver, you're not going to do the maneuver.

But the only aspect of the maneuver that prevented Hani from walking away was the achievement of his goal: the successful strike of his predetermined target, namely the Pentagon (and quite possibly a specific side of it).

If, on the other hand, the goal was to land safely and the target was a predetermined landing strip, then the aspect that prevented Hani from walking away wouldn't even be a factor.

Physically it is possible since, and you agree, AA77 hit the building and didn't break up on approach. [emphasis mine]

Appealing to my schtick when it suits you and then chiding me for it when it doesn't ...just won't do.

So which is it, CC: am I on your side, or not? -- You can't have it both ways.

Either way though, yes, I agree: that is what happened ...according to the OTC.

[...] "Pulling it off" is the standard, not the goal. "Pulling it off" is defined, 100% of the time as getting away with whatever caper you are undertaking. You brought the term up; not me crapstone. Feel free to walk it back.

Why on Earth would I want to "walk it back", Kiddyporn?!

If landing softly in the laps of his 70 virgins on the other side of the Pentagon's western wall (as a fundamentalist of Hani's zeal and conviction would have truly believed to be the fate that awaited him) doesn't count as "getting away with [one the greatest acts of martyrdom in Islamic history]", I don't know of any other "caper" that would!

Deities do not make persons do things. Christ, no more than Allah.

Just as I suspected: bigotry against religion, coupled with...

I always pictured him looking up at me.

...religious bigotry.

The $2.3T was not missing; it was unaccounted for and Rumsfeld (who was in the building that was hit by a plane) was announcing a new data collection program that was going to change that. You're thinly veiled moronic gambit falls well short of the facts at hand.

Yeah, too bad the "new data collection program" never had a chance of getting off the ground prior to the destruction of so much data and some of the people who might have seen that something was amiss.

In fairness to the DoD though, the initial report of 2.3T in "unaccounted for" funds was only a year and half old when Donald went public about it (on CBS) ...on the evening before the attacks that affectively undermined any future effort to clear things up.

As for Rummy being inside the building and surviving, so were MOST of the Pentagon's inhabitants that morning.

BTW, since Rumsfeld was the SoD (read: the newly anointed shot-caller for US air defenses, as of 6/1/01), his death might have actually been a more convenient happenstance than his survival. After all, the best of the best scapegoats are usually the dead ones.

 

[candycorn]

This is somewhat embarrassing, Candycorn.

I'm sure you're used to being embarrassed.


yeah...giggle...okay.


Now I can see why you are embarrassed often.




Quit making an ass of yourself. If you can't walk away from the maneuver, you're not going to do the maneuver. Physically it is possible since, and you agree, AA77 hit the building and didn't break up on approach.



Again, for your own sake, quit making an ass of yourself. "Pulling it off" is the standard, not the goal. "Pulling it off" is defined, 100% of the time as getting away with whatever caper you are undertaking. You brought the term up; not me crapstone. Feel free to walk it back.


Okay.




Yes.


Deities do not make persons do things. Christ, no more than Allah.


Cool; I always pictured him looking up at me.


Again, you should really consider ceasing to make an ass of yourself.

The fact that the bean counter's office was destroyed along with some egghead accountants the day after 2.3 trillion dollars had gone missing ...is just a coincidence -- one of MANY according to the OCT.

The $2.3T was not missing; it was unaccounted for and Rumsfeld (who was in the building that was hit by a plane) was announcing a new data collection program that was going to change that. You're thinly veiled moronic gambit falls well short of the facts at hand.

Again, we all know why you're embarrassed so often.

Within an hour of the Pentagon being struck Rumsfeld had instructed his staff to plan an attack strategy for Iraq. That whole bunch had been trying to get an excuse to attack Iraq for years. If you doubt it read this letter to Clinton:

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

None of that surprises me. I am of the opinion that Had 9/11 not taken place, GWB would have found a different reason to go into Iraq. The WMD excuse was good for all seasons.

 

[Liability]

...the same goddamned conscience that has prevented me from profiting on anything other than my steadfast conviction.

For what felony were you convicted?

 

[candycorn]

Candycorn,

I'm going to disregard the fluff and go straight for the jugular.

I hope you don't mind.

I'm sure the anemic words that follow this hollow statement will be of no concern to me.

[...]If you can't walk away from the maneuver, you're not going to do the maneuver.

But the only aspect of the maneuver that prevented Hani from walking away was the achievement of his goal: the successful strike of his predetermined target, namely the Pentagon (and quite possibly a specific side of it).

If, on the other hand, the goal was to land safely and the target was a predetermined landing strip, then the aspect that prevented Hani from walking away wouldn't even be a factor.

Your theory is that after clipping 5 lightpoles, he could have pulled up? Someone's meds aren't working.

Physically it is possible since, and you agree, AA77 hit the building and didn't break up on approach. [emphasis mine]

Appealing to my schtick when it suits you and then chiding me for it when it doesn't ...just won't do.

So which is it, CC: am I on your side, or not? -- You can't have it both ways.

Either way though, yes, I agree: that is what happened ...according to the OTC.



Why on Earth would I want to "walk it back", Kiddyporn?!

If landing softly in the laps of his 70 virgins on the other side of the Pentagon's western wall (as a fundamentalist of Hani's zeal and conviction would have truly believed to be the fate that awaited him) doesn't count as "getting away with [one the greatest acts of martyrdom in Islamic history]", I don't know of any other "caper" that would!

Not sure what any of that was supposed to mean but okay. Apparently, you've basically admitted that you're simply wasting time. Cool.

Perhaps you'd like to man-up (for once) and tell us what you think happened on that day addressing all four flights in reasonable detail.

If you do, you'll be the first. Most conspiracy whackjobs tuck tail and run. I'm guessing you won't be any different.

Just as I suspected: bigotry against religion, coupled with...

I always pictured him looking up at me.

...religious bigotry.

Now THAT is funny. The guy kills hundreds of people and because I think he is in Hell for doing it, it becomes a denouncement of his religion, not his act. Again, your meds ain't working junior.

The $2.3T was not missing; it was unaccounted for and Rumsfeld (who was in the building that was hit by a plane) was announcing a new data collection program that was going to change that. You're thinly veiled moronic gambit falls well short of the facts at hand.

Yeah, too bad the "new data collection program" never had a chance of getting off the ground prior to the destruction of so much data and some of the people who might have seen that something was amiss.

So you think that Donald Rumsfeld announced $2.3T missing dollars (obviously this would be Clinton's problem, not Bush's) and had a plane steered into a building--one that he was in--to take out those who may find it?

I'm pretty good at pharmacology; I could probably recommend something that is stronger than whatever you're on at this time.

In fairness to the DoD though, the initial report of 2.3T in "unaccounted for" funds was only a year and half old when Donald went public about it (on CBS) ...on the evening before the attacks that affectively undermined any future effort to clear things up.

As for Rummy being inside the building and surviving, so were MOST of the Pentagon's inhabitants that morning.

BTW, since Rumsfeld was the SoD (read: the newly anointed shot-caller for US air defenses, as of 6/1/01), his death might have actually been a more convenient happenstance than his survival. After all, the best of the best scapegoats are usually the dead ones.

What I've come to expect from twoofers...sad and disgusting all in one.

Was that your "going for the jugular"? Gee, hard to get happy now.

 

[Capstone]

Candycorn,

One point of clarification before I'm through with you:

Your theory is that after clipping 5 lightpoles, he could have pulled up?

No, my theory (or rather my statement of the obvious) is that the manuever Hani managed to pull off (the 8,000 FT descending 270 degree corkscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground) prior to hitting his intended target ...is apart from any incidental contact (EG the lightpoles) AND from the destruction of the aircraft itself (which was solely due to the pilot intentionally crashing the plane into the western wall of the Pentagon). And if such a maneuver was successfuly executed prior to hitting the Pentagon on 9/11/01, then it must be possible for any pilot with the proper skill level to execute the very same maneuver in an area free of any lightpoles or buildings.

Accordingly, the reticence expressed by some experienced and highly skilled aviators to even consider such a maneuver was based on the sheer difficulty of the move. Which goes straight to the jugular of your earlier argument regarding the nature of their proclivity. They weren't talking about the danger; they were talking about the difficulty.

That's all I have for you, Candycorn.

Gloat, as you will, about my failure to dance on the other end of your strings, but I've no inclination to send this thread off into the sunset like most of the others posted by Truthers.

It's time for you to defend your conspiracy theory for a change.

 

[candycorn]

Candycorn,

One point of clarification before I'm through with you:

Your theory is that after clipping 5 lightpoles, he could have pulled up?

No, my theory (or rather my statement of the obvious) is that the manuever Hani managed to pull off (the 8,000 FT descending 270 degree corkscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground) prior to hitting his intended target ...is apart from any incidental contact (EG the lightpoles) AND from the destruction of the aircraft itself (which was solely due to the pilot intentionally crashing the plane into the western wall of the Pentagon). And if such a maneuver was successfuly executed prior to hitting the Pentagon on 9/11/01, then it must be possible for any pilot with the proper skill level to execute the very same maneuver in an area free of any lightpoles or buildings.

Accordingly, the reticence expressed by some experienced and highly skilled aviators to even consider such a maneuver was based on the sheer difficulty of the move. Which goes straight to the jugular of your earlier argument regarding the nature of their proclivity. They weren't talking about the danger; they were talking about the difficulty.

That's all I have for you, Candycorn.

Gloat, as you will, about my failure to dance on the other end of your strings, but I've no inclination to send this thread off into the sunset like most of the others posted by Truthers.

It's time for you to defend your conspiracy theory for a change.

I can't help but gloat; you're nothing but a failure in this. It makes me the victor. Sorry.

As for AA77:

The plane can do it. Fact.
Since planes are piloted, any pilot could do it. Fact.

The only difference between Hani and Maverick is Maverick wants to live to play Volleyball with Goose and Slider. Hani wants to believe in the 72 virgins or whatever it is.

I stand by the 9/11 Commission Report. On the major points, it's 100% bulletproof. I hear that the first draft was actually written on Kevlar. LOL.

Feel free to assault all you wish.