Re: "Hijackers" Fly In the Wrong Direction?
From: God in a Box (master_at_mason.snuh)
Date: 09/15/04
- Next message: Mitchell: "Time for Light"
- Previous message: Edward Green: "Re: Layman Q: wave funtion and measurement"
- In reply to: Benign Vanilla: "Re: "Hijackers" Fly In the Wrong Direction?"
- Next in thread: Benign Vanilla: "Re: The 757 silhouette is obvious"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 15 Sep 2004 01:38:01 GMT
"Benign Vanilla" <BVanillaREMOVE@tibetanbeefgarden.com> wrote in
news:2qpb16F122ro2U1@uni-berlin.de:
>
> "God in a Box" <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message
> news:Xns9564908559487spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17...
>> Q: How can you spot an amateur disinformationalist?
>>
>> A: He snips the pertinent text...
>
> And where did I do this?
In this post. Please quit playing ho games.
>> "Benign Vanilla" <BVanillaREMOVE@tibetanbeefgarden.com> wrote in
>> news:2qotc0F11b2vvU1@uni-berlin.de:
>>
>> > "God in a Box" <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns95648808CECC1spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17...
>> > <snip>
>> >> I can see I'm going to have to hold your hand all the way through
>> >> this. I hate talking to ignorant people. You waste my time, probably
>> > intentionally.
>> >>
>> >> I guess you are also unaware that the "hijacked planes" also flew
>> >> over several military bases in their leisurely flights?
>> >>
>> >> Plane Swap: Part 1, Flight 11 Goes the Wrong Direction
>> >> http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/Flight11.htm
>> >>
>> >> Flight 93 meets Flight 175
>> >> http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/Flight175and93.htm
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > Plenty of information on those sites, all speculation on what
>> > happened.
>>
>> It's not speculation, it's the flight pattern. It raises far more
> questions
>> than it answers.
>
> Why?
I've outlined the reasons below. Perhaps you should look at the sites
cited?
>> > How do these flight plans prove anything other then where the planes
>> > flew, which is not argued by anyone.
>>
>> Why did the plane fly to the northeast?
>
> I can't answer this, without a copy of the flight plan.
Did you look at the pages?
>> How did it turn without banking?
>
> Huh? Where do you derive the idea that it did not bank, #1?
The pages that you apparently failed to examine.
> And #2, a
> plane can turn without banking. So what.
Perhaps I am using the wrong terminology. I don't mean "a change in roll,
pitch or yaw". What I mean is, the plane was headed northwest (having flown
away from DC and NY), and then in the same minute, the plane is heading
southeast, with no apparent turning involved.
To turn without banking would require far more distance to achieve, and
would take more than a minute to do so.
As I said, perhaps you should look at the evidence you asked to see.
>> > And as for the attacks on the
>> > pilot's abilities. The major turns and course changes were almost
>> > definately
>>
>> Almost definitely?
>
> Yes, in modern aircraft the pilots don't have their hands on the yoke
> for majority of the flight. Waypoints are set in the computer. Ask any
> commercial pilot.
So the "terrorists" programmed the computer to fly away from the targets?
>> Were these guys qualified to program flight patterns?
>
> LOL. Even you could be trained to do this in a short amount of time.
And do you have any evidence at all that this occurred?
>> Cite?
>>
>> > (I am sure we could verify with black box data)
>>
>> If all the black boxes didn't mysteriously get destroyed...
>
> Yeah imagine, a precident setting air disaster and the black boxes
> failed.
"Precedent". You sure make a lot of "typos".
What makes these crashes any different from any other crashes?
Were these black boxes made out of graham crackers?
>> > done by
>> > waypoints dialed into the computer. These guys did not have their
>> > hands on the yokes until the last moment.
>>
>> Do you have proof of your new assertion?
>
> Touche. No I do not, that is true. I am making an assertion. My point
> was simply that in flight directional changes are typically made by
> computer, and require no flying skills, so for someone to say an awful
> pilot could not do this, is irrelevant.
No, you're simply wrong again, here. Flight 77 is claimed to have made a
rapid descent in a tight circular pattern to strike a specific part of the
Pentagon. It was not programmed to do so, that implies a granularity not
available in standard 757 controls, without resorting to manual flight.
Of course, the 757 is also claimed to have come in via a straight line, but
we won't let conflicting cover stories get in the way of each other, will
we?
>>
>> ASCE Report Proves No 757 Hit The Pentagon
>> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>>
>> No 757 Hit The Pentagon
>> http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
>>
>> New Online Video Proves No 757 Hit The Pentagon
>> http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf
-- http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more Gortician's Not Dead, Punk http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537 Gortician - "Purple Haze" cover http://www.audiostreet.net/artists/000/640/gortician.html
- Next message: Mitchell: "Time for Light"
- Previous message: Edward Green: "Re: Layman Q: wave funtion and measurement"
- In reply to: Benign Vanilla: "Re: "Hijackers" Fly In the Wrong Direction?"
- Next in thread: Benign Vanilla: "Re: The 757 silhouette is obvious"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
