Me vs. Thee watch
Posted by aogWednesday, 03 March 2010 at 10:54 TrackBack Ping URL

Does any one know why Orrin Judd is so negative about the Tea Party activists other than he’s a leftist who doesn’t like people getting in the way of expanding government? It is somewhat bizarre because the activists hew fairly well to the ideas of the Founders, which Judd lauds on a regular basis. Judd even complains about the exact same thing which adds a bit to the oddity. I would also note that I have been to Tea Party protests and “people reliving the 1960s” is almost as pure a case of projection as you’ll find.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
erp Wednesday, 03 March 2010 at 13:51

As I’ve commented at the Bros, a lot of oj’s pithy remarks are purely to roil the waters, but even so, he’s apparently far more amenable to government involvement in our affairs than I am and from what I’ve read, conservatives in general.

I don’t get the negative reaction to tea parties either. There are accusations of this or that white supremist/wingnut/racist co-opting the movement, but from what I’ve seen, an orderly and non violent cross section of our fellow citizens are protesting a takeover of our country by the far left. What’s not to like?

Let things shake out and in November we’ll see if any viable leaders immerge. The leftovers from the last election are dead politically in my opinion (Romney is particularly pathetic) and Palin is smart to keep ‘em guessing about her intentions.

Hey Skipper Wednesday, 03 March 2010 at 17:06

Because, like any leftist, he is an unprincipled elitist.

cjm Wednesday, 03 March 2010 at 20:14

because he’s completely full of crap?

Hey Skipper Wednesday, 03 March 2010 at 22:31

Since when does unprincipled elitist not mean full of crap?

Robert Mitchell Jr. Thursday, 04 March 2010 at 09:59

I would think it is because of the appalling record third parties have had, what with Wilson getting into power because of Teddy’s Tantrum and doing harm to the world that we are still dealing with, as our big example. Third parties seem drawn to hurting Republicans and helping Democrats in our winner take all system. Given the mess “Porkbusters” made last time, and the fact that the “Tea party” people seem to be cut of the same cloth, with the same stupid idea that the parties are equally corrupt, (One of the “Tea Party” people commenting on OJ’s blog was Still angry about the Great I.M. scandal!) one might be a little calm. How many times must the “Perfect be the Enemy of the Good” before it gets old? I mean, even if you got rid of the Republican party, the people who make it up will still be there, will still want to participate. Unless the “Tea Party” blacklists them.…..

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 05 March 2010 at 07:57

Mr. Mitchell;

My question wasn’t why Judd was negative toward the political effects of the Tea Party. Third party risks of counter-productive results is a serious issue. My question was why Judd was so antagonistic to the activists as people, calling them “lunatics”, crazies”, “just reliving their 60s protesting”, and exactly like the Code Pink freaks.

One might ask in return how Judd expects to change the GOP with regard to the same issues, to which he also frequently posts objections.

Robert Mitchell Jr. Friday, 05 March 2010 at 11:19

I would point out that being more upset about Instant Messages to adults then letting a woman drown in seven feet of water is “Lunatic” and “Crazy”. The caliber of “Tea party” commenter on Mr. Judd’s blog has lived down to his expectations. I have certainly encountered similar at my store. As a rule, they were the same people who voted for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 because “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties” and “We have to teach the Republicans a Lesson! Look how bad the deficit is!”. Now the people who gave the Democrats a veto proof majority are throwing a very public, Code Pink style tantrum. I try to be polite, for these people are customers, but it’s hard, when you saw it coming and they blew you off. I’m not surprised Mr. Judd is showing a little bile, he doesn’t have customers.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 05 March 2010 at 12:10

I would point out that being more upset about Instant Messages to adults then letting a woman drown in seven feet of water is “Lunatic” and “Crazy”.

And this is a major issue with the Tea Party activists? I haven’t seen a single mention of it in that regard. Or is the claim that if someone exists who is both (1) upset in this way and (2) claims to be a Tea Party activist, then we can extrapolate from there to the entire political movement?

I find your other characterizations of the activists very divergent from reality. Isn’t it Judd who frequently reminds us that we who hang out online are the freaks and not representative of normal people? Yet you say he would judge this movement by elements that are fringe even for the Internet?

I would provide, as far more realistic and revelant evidence, the support for Scott Brown as a candidate even though he’s clearly a RINO. Yet the Tea Party base turned out for him with time and money, because they realized that purity has context and the smart move is incremental improvement. Contrast that with the MAList base running a primary challenge to Senator Blanch Lincoln.

No, I don’t find your line of argument persuasive.

Bret Friday, 05 March 2010 at 12:20

RM Jr. wrote: “The caliber of “Tea party” commenter on Mr. Judd’s blog…”

Mr. Judd has a habit of driving rational commenters away and maintaining an echo chamber with a few crackpots to prove his points. Thought Mesh is part of the “post-Judd Alliance” which is a group of commenters that gave up commenting regularly at Brother’s Judd because their comments were frequently deleted or, even worse, edited whenever those comments went against Judd’s worldview. So I wouldn’t count on Judd’s comments section to be particularly reliable. The “Tea party commenter” may not even be a real person.

RM Jr. wrote: “…very public, Code Pink style tantrum.

I suppose all protests and even dissent can be consider tantrums and whining. However, I believe it is a reasonable political gathering. I strongly disagree with the substance of Code Pink’s message, but not so much the method.

RM Jr. apparently disagrees with: “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties

I believe that without strong pressure from groups like the Tea Parties, the two main parties were becoming more and more similar (the main similarity being pro-big-government). I don’t know if there’s a dimes worth or a quarters worth or a pennies worth of difference, but it did seem to be shrinking fairly rapidly.

Does it much matter if the country is driven into the ground a bit earlier by the Democrats if it’s still going to be driven into the ground by the republicans?

Robert Mitchell Jr. Friday, 05 March 2010 at 13:16

The I.M. bit was mentioned by a “Tea Party” guy on Mr. Judd’s blog. I thought it part of a pattern, where Republican “scandals” (Toe tapping, Ted Stevens show trial, Libby’s bizarre “Perjury” charge, etc) are worse then or equal to Democrat scandals (Murder, Rape, cash payoffs in fridge, etc). A good example of that being Bret, who can still argue that the parties are the same, despite the tenfold difference in the deficit and spending between Bush and Obama. People who can’t see the difference between having a mortgage and selling the house and going to Vegas and putting it all on red are not people I want voting, and when I see them getting passionate about an issue, it makes me nervous. Ignorance and Anger are a bad combination, as we saw with the “Porkbuster” people. As to Scott Brown, I heard people screaming “RINO” the minute he acted like a Massachusetts Republican. If the movement can overcome that shortsighted impulse, then great. If OJ and I seem a little jaded, it’s because I (and I believe he) watched the flame out of Porkbusters, and Bill Quick’s group, and the Reform party (which had enough power to get Bill Clinton Elected twice.…). We’ve seen this dance before. At some point, it becomes “Show me”.

Bret, Marching without purpose is a tantrum. What happened in Massachusetts was great. Passion + election = win. Passion - election = stupid + vain. Been several “events” not connected to any election. I would hate to see elections lost because of exhaustion. Second, once again, “Perfect is the enemy of the Good”. Tenfold increase in the deficit. Nationalization of Car companies. Cap and Trade. National Health Care. And you don’t see a difference worth talking about.…..

AOG, Bret’s with you. He seems to be a “Tea Party” guy. Here, now, with the disaster of National Health Care on the table, he doesn’t see a difference between the two parties. He’s not your fault. But don’t you see how annoying some might find that?

pj Friday, 05 March 2010 at 14:24

AOG, I don’t think it’s fair to classify Scott Brown as a RINO. He didn’t recently become active in the Republican party, he’s been building the party for a long time even when it was moribund. This wasn’t his first run for office, he’s gradually climbed up a series of offices. He’s a grassroots center-right Republican, who has to make gestures to state opinion and demonstrate a willingness to work with Democrats, so he will vote with the Democrats from time to time on unimportant matters, but on the important votes will side with conservatives.

RINOs side with liberals on important matters, stabbing conservatives in the back. Totally different beast.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 05 March 2010 at 15:12

Mr. Mitchell;

You wrote

he [Bret]doesn’t see a difference between the two parties

That’s an inaccurate paraphrase of his comment, which was

I believe that without strong pressure from groups like the Tea Parties, the two main parties were becoming more and more similar (the main similarity being pro-big-government).[…] it did seem to be shrinking fairly rapidly.

Note the tense of the verbs. Bret was describing the direction of a trend, not the end result of that trend. One might note back at you that until Obama, Bush was the biggest spending President in history. I would say that validates Bret’s observation of a trend. Let me ask, absent the Tea Party, for what reason do you believe that the GOP wouldn’t continue the Bush trend of ever bigger government and spending? Do you think the end result of that would be fundamentally different than what the Democratic Party is working towards, other than arriving somewhat later?

You also wrote

The I.M. bit was mentioned by a “Tea Party” guy on Mr. Judd’s blog.

One random commentor on a minor weblog enables the characterization of political movement of millions? Who is being hyperbolic and excessively passionate on this subject again?

As for your other points, let’s consider what you view as an accurate history of the Tea Party members. First they sat out the election, and that didn’t work. So they tried protesting to get the attention of their elected representatives (and note, they didn’t just hit the streets, they showed up at public meetings with those representatives until the latter fled), and when that didn’t work they started working on elections (e.g. Scott Brown). You think that’s a tantrum?

I will re-iterate that I understand your concern about the large scale political effects of things like the Tea Party. But I don’t see how that justifies such personal scorn and hyperbolic insults like “lunatics”.

pj;

I was using “RINO” in the colloquial meaning of “very squishy GOP member who would have been in the Democratic Party 30 years ago”. I am not so sure he’s center-right, I view him more as center-left, i.e. again where the Democratic Party was 30-40 years ago.

I noted before the election that I expected votes like he just made on the jobs bill and considered it a bargain compared to what we would have gotten had Coakley won.

Bret Friday, 05 March 2010 at 16:03

RM Jr. wrote: “Tenfold increase in the deficit.…

Your math is off, but that’s not material.

What is material is that all things aren’t equal between 2008 under Bush and 2009 under Obama so you can’t claim that Obama is worse because nobody knows how it would’ve turned out under Bush. Second, the choice wasn’t between Bush and Obama. It was between McCain and Obama and McCain is known to be erratic, ornery, and stubborn (thus the nickname “maverick”). It’s far, far, far from clear that we’d be substantially better of with McCain in the whitehouse. Third, well, everything aog said in kindly defending my statement that you so badly twisted (i.e. the trend is not good).

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 05 March 2010 at 16:32

And now Judd is quoting David Brooks on the subject. I would say that alone proves Judd has no case and he knows it.

erp Friday, 05 March 2010 at 17:00

Sometimes it’s easier to just use the old “take it from whence it comes” short cut and discount a priori anything from David Brooks and other self-serving crossovers who change their politics for reasons only they know.

I can understand how those on the left can see the light and move right, but no matter how I try, can’t understand how anybody on the right, knowing the track record of the left, can move in that direction. Sullivan and Johnson’s abrupt 180 still baffles me.

pj Friday, 05 March 2010 at 18:46

erp - One reason for moving to the left is ill health. People whose mental health declines, e.g. due to brain infections, often become unhappy, angry, irritable, fearful. Those are characteristic emotions of the left. Sullivan has HIV which suppresses the immune defense and produces chronic infections of the brain. Charles Johnson I don’t know anything about, but some sort of health problem wouldn’t surprise me.

AOG - We will see, but I hope “canny” might prove a better adjective than “squishy.” Liberals pretend to be moderate/conservative all the time but support the left on key issues, yet win re-election in red states; see e.g. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who was there for health care when Obama needed him. Republicans can play the same game — defuse the obvious attack of tieing them to a party unpopular in their state, but promote that party’s goals.

The jobs bill cost $15 bn and didn’t change the relationship between citizen and state. On the multi-trillion dollar Obamacare bill, Brown will be solid.

erp Friday, 05 March 2010 at 21:59

We have a really good chance of turning things around in November and I really hope squabbling about tea parties and the John Birch Society and whatever other nutcases pop up don’t put the kabosh on it.

pj, I agree that embracing left wing agency is figurative lunacy, but all of its adherents can’t have a brain disease.

Bret Friday, 05 March 2010 at 23:29

erp wrote: “…all of its adherents can’t have a brain disease.

Humans are a social animal and as such, tend to adopt the ideologies of others around them. If you were to move to, say, Berkeley, and associate only with people in Berkeley, you would become much more liberal. I know you’ll vehemently disagree, but I’m going to pre-disagree with your vehement disagreement. :-)

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Saturday, 06 March 2010 at 07:27

“How can anybody on the right, knowing the track record of the left, move in that direction?”

Because the right also has a knowable track record. Being for something, but never accomplishing it, is absolutely useless, and in fact the right has suffered badly from “logo-realism”, which AOG defines as “the belief that words are primary and that physical reality can be shaped by using the right words.”

Therefore people who are center-right might decide that if the right won’t do those things they espouse of which the centerist approves, then they become the greater evil compared to the flawed-but-accomplished left, and voila, the center-leftist is born.

erp Saturday, 06 March 2010 at 09:26

Bret,

I will vehemently disagree because I’ve spent my life in Berzerkley-like environments, from growing up in a working class area of Queens (a borough of NYC) where nobody even heard of Republicans, attending Queens College, a branch of the City College of New York during the 50’s, getting married and moving to a semi-upscale suburb in Connecticut where I was part of the local ivy league university community and then to a liberal arts, emphasis on liberal, college in a small Vermont town. I also did volunteer work at a heartbreakingly poor rural school in Vermont where the latest fads in the edbiz were being tested to disastrous results and served on more than a few local and state boards of do-gooders (don’t ask how I survived that).

In every situation, I was surrounded by full blown Kool-Aid drinkers and although I was somewhat circumspect in airing my opinions having a spouse who was on the payroll (as I was in a lesser capacities) and having kids in the public schools (see Skipper’s post here). Even so, there were times when persons became apoplectic when I pointed out factual errors in some pro-commie/Soviet or anti-McCarthy rant. Reagan was also a popular bugaboo.

I was called every name in the compassionates lexicon from Nazi on down. When our kids were all out of school and gainfully employed, we retired at age 53 and moved to sunny Florida where I can p*ss off anyone I want without deleterious effects to them or our bottom line.

BTW – it might amuse you to know that my younger son lived in Berzerkley for three or four years because although his politics are pretty sensible, my daughter-in-law is one of “them.” When the kids started school, they smartened up and they moved to Piedmont – still liberal, but manageably so.

So I’ll put my bona fides up against anyone. People can think for themselves – whether they want to be shunned and condemned for thinking out of the prevailing mainstream is another matter. It’s not easy navigating through the shoals especially when what you say or do will affect your livelihood and your children’s welfare.

Rough, I just love jingo.

erp Saturday, 06 March 2010 at 09:55

Don’t know what happened to the link above, but here’s Skippers post.

In my comment above to pj, the word “agency” was supposed to be spelled, agenda.

Harry Eagar Saturday, 06 March 2010 at 12:58

Taking Guy’s assessment that the masses of tea partiers are not antiblack, antiJew, gold bug, truther, birther loons, which is probably correct, given my understanding of how these things work, while it’s obvious that the so-called leadership is all of those and more, what future can the Tea Party have?

To the degree that the masses are not nuts, they are also not going to go back to the second and third meetings.

It is even possible to have a low-tax, small government movement any more that won’t be colonized by the troofer/birfer/antiBilderburger zealots?

erp Saturday, 06 March 2010 at 14:19

Harry, are you saying that if people can’t keep out undesirables*, they shouldn’t have meetings or protest as a group at all?

_______

*Who they are and why they’re undesirable isn’t always clear. BTW - Is it our father’s JBS or is it a new incarnation? I haven’t heard about them in probably 30-40 years. Could the same crowd have been hiding underground all these years?

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Saturday, 06 March 2010 at 16:02

…what future can the Tea Party have?

It is even possible to have a low-tax, small government movement any more that won’t be colonized by the troofer/birfer/antiBilderburger zealots?

As for fringe movements and third parties, I can attest that although the Libertarian Party’s platform has many attractive elements, my personal experience from a decade ago is that the actual Libertarians themselves are a motley lot, and that those who are motivated enough to be Party officials or to run for office as politicians are a largely and peculiarly malcompetitive sort: Those who couldn’t win a race for dogcatcher and those who could, but who won’t run for dogcatcher, preferring instead to get crushed in a gubernatorial, U.S. Senate or Presidential race rather than to win a local race.

pj Saturday, 06 March 2010 at 18:10

Brain infections are actually quite common; everyone who is immune-suppressed (e.g. HIV infected) and almost all elderly get them, and a surprising number of middle aged and younger people, but they are rarely diagnosed. Alzheimer’s is probably due to bacterial infections; multiple sclerosis is probably the result of a combination of viral and bacterial infections; Parkinson’s and ALS are also likely infectious in origin. I myself had a chronic bacterial infection of the brain for about 8 years that was finally cured with antibiotics and diet, so I have some personal experience with what the effects are. You lose memory, cognitive performance declines, happiness disappears and you become irritable - because the bacteria are stealing glucose/pyruvate, as well as serotonin precursors like tryptophan, you constantly feel like people with low blood sugar/hypoglycemia. Of course, it never turned me into a leftist, but I can see how it would make people emotionally sympatico with the left. I wouldn’t be surprised if a surprisingly large fraction of the left has subclinical disease. Misery loves company, might as well hang with the chronically miserable. And if you know you’re incapable and declining, might as well seek a welfare state or tenured government-supported job.

As for Berkeley, I lived there 6 years and it didn’t move me an inch toward the left.

erp Saturday, 06 March 2010 at 18:42

pj. What kind of a diet did you follow and how were you diagnosed? I have all the symptoms, except leftism, and am elderly. Maybe a diet will help.

pj Sunday, 07 March 2010 at 10:56

erp - Had to figure it out myself, medicine is backward when it comes to chronic disease. Am planning to start a health blog to share what I’ve learned. A lot of elderly are suffering needlessly.

Diet - The low-carb Paleo diet is the right strategy, but with a key modification: it’s important to provide ketone bodies for neuronal health while keeping blood glucose levels low. This can be done by eating ~4 tbsp per day coconut oil. Also, vitamin D & K2 supplements, vitamin C (2 gm/day), and selenium/iodine are critical. Aim for ~70% calories from fat, 15% carb, 15% protein. This can be done with equal weights plant and animal food, but make the animal food tasty(no dry chicken breast or white fish) and eliminate cereal grains from the plant foods — in-ground starches like sweet potato/taro/potato are good, so are fruits and berries, and colorful vegetables, onions, mushrooms, etc. No vegetable oils or grains.

erp Sunday, 07 March 2010 at 11:46

pj, thanks.

Gosh, this is a tough one. No grains, no dairy!! Coconut oil? Only root vegetables? My husband would never go along with this, but I’ll give it some thought.

Let me know when you get your blog up and running.

Harry Eagar Sunday, 07 March 2010 at 13:03

It’s the same Birchers. Not the same individuals, of course, but the same stuff. The Secret Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion were forged over a hundred years ago, but you can find them on Ron Paul’s website right now, fresh as a daisy.

The gold bug literature is evergreen, too.

I don’t discount the possibility of a tea party surge at the polls in 2010 or 2012 if the residual mischief of Phil Gramm ratchets down the economy another big notch. Remember that even with as unattractive and patently loony a candidate of Ross Perot, a substantial number of unhappy voters deserted the parties during a much milder downturn less than 20 years ago.

Fear and anger are great motivators. I was struck by the difference in reaction between the Haitians, who waited several days until they were actually starving to loot, and the Chileans, who looted instantly after the earthquakes.

pj Sunday, 07 March 2010 at 14:15

erp - Dairy is OK, unless you’re sensitive to it. If you have intestinal tract problems, resulting in a leaky gut, then milk proteins can cause trouble. In that case, clarified butter (aka ghee) is still OK. I eat a lot of cream, ice cream, butter, yoghurt. But getting rid of cereal grains is important because they have toxins that suppress the immune response to intracellular bacteria (e.g. wheat germ agglutinin), plus generally an excess of carb calories, giving bacteria plenty of food to enable reproduction. If you get hypoglycemic symptoms when removing grains, add coconut oil until they stop.

Blog will be at perfecthealthdiet.com, an RSS subscription will work.

David Cohen Sunday, 07 March 2010 at 14:35

OJ’s major problem is that the Tea Partiers are flirting with birtherism and anti-immigration. To that extent, I agree with him.

pj Sunday, 07 March 2010 at 14:43

erp - After you’re adapted to the diet and vitamin D, ask your doctor for antibiotics. Doxycycline is a good way to start. You’ll be able to tell from the response whether you have a chronic infection. Email me if you want more information.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 07 March 2010 at 21:20

Mr. Cohen;

OJ’s major problem is that the Tea Partiers are flirting with birtherism and anti-immigration.

No, he thinks that the Tea Partiers are only birthers and anti-open borders.

P.S. You have to be careful with the word “immigration” with respect to Judd, as he thinks that anything other than full support for open orders is entirely based in racial xenophobia.

Mr. Eagar;

while it’s obvious that the so-called leadership is all of those and more, what future can the Tea Party have?

You’re not understanding the phenomenon. There is no leadership, it’s a real grass roots thing. There are plenty of speakers at various events, but they’re far more of people making a pitch for support than leaders in any traditional sense. Perhaps that will change over time, but it’s not at all accurate currently.

Harry Eagar Monday, 08 March 2010 at 00:05

Well, I called them the ‘so-called leadership,’ so in this case we do not disagree, I think.

What we’ve got is people who are frightened and angry, milling around and looking for someone to lead them to glory. It happens that there is a herd of unsavory would-be fuhrers out there hoping to latch on to them. As I said earlier, I doubt many will come back for a second or third exposure to the fuhrers, who really are as scummy a bunch of haters, crackpots and tinhorn swindlers as you could find in these 50 states.

Which does not mean that if things get worse (which I still expect), there couldn’t be a movement that either self-ignited or was taken over by a charismatic speaker.

We are not going to have a genuine grassroots movement without leadership that amounts to anything.

If I wanted to hear Tea Party talk, I could just hang out at the barbershop anytime these past 50 years.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Monday, 08 March 2010 at 00:49

If you don’t want to take straight coconut oil, then eating a larger amount of coconut milk substituted for bovine milk will do the trick, as one of the methods for obtaining coconut oil is to simply skim coconut milk. Coconut oil is analogous to bovine cream.

I like “Thai Kitchen” brand coconut milk.

erp Monday, 08 March 2010 at 08:08

Re: Birthers

The disdain against so-called “birthers” is puzzling.

We have a president who has deliberately sealed up his entire past, including his birth certificate — normally not a controversial document — behind a wall of legalities and it’s the people who are asking that the information be made public who are being faulted as nutcases and crazies.

IMO there must be information that Obama doesn’t want made public or he wouldn’t add to his woes by giving his opponents such an easy target on what should be a non-issue.

My guess is that his parents weren’t legally married as his father had at least one wife in Kenya at the time, but whatever it is, we should know about it as we should about his vaunted genius level academic record, his travels on an Indonesian passport, whether or not the Saudi’s paid for law school, Ayers, Annenberg and the list goes on.

The left has so dominated the narrative for such a long time that few people even notice anymore that we’re living in “Alice in Wonderland” where people are demonized by asking the right questions of our leaders and they are portrayed as victims of the VRWC.

Re: Truthers

Only those with advanced BDS could believe that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks and chose not to take any action to stop them.

Re: Immigration

There is room for reasonable people to disagree on this issue with resorting to ad hominen attacks on each other. ________

In the good news department, apparently the Academy Awards were relatively PC free and the winning screenwriter made a pro-military acceptance speech.

Maybe times are a’changing.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Monday, 08 March 2010 at 09:13

The disdain against so-called “birthers” is puzzling.

Not really.

It’s the same mentality which would lead you to write that “only those with advanced BDS could believe that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks.”

The fact of the matter is that the purported crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon resulted from an extremely unusual, nearly-impossible flight path for a commercial airliner flown by an experienced pilot, (never mind one being handled by an inexperienced and unqualified flight-school dropout), and yielded an extremely unusual, unique and bizarre crash scene and damage pattern for what was putatively the impact of a fuel-laden 757 into a massive building.

Viewing photographs of the damage to the last wall breached before the airplane wreckage supposedly came to rest in an inner courtyard is particularly troubling for somebody who’d like to believe that there is no way in Hell that the American gov’t, or any agencies therein, had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11. And there’s a truckload of other suggestive, circumstantial photographic evidence from that scene.

Plus there was the whole “let’s sink all of the evidentiary wreckage and debris from NYC to the bottom of the ocean” nonsense. We save blood, hair, fingerprints and other evidence from thirty-year old personal crimes, but the for the worst violent crime and mass murder in half a century we start disposing of evidence within 90 days?!?

So if the only evidence that the birthers have is negative, “the dog that didn’t bark”, then they’re exactly as crazy as are the truthers. Neither group has any hard evidence, just odd circumstances which would seem to merit further inquiry.

We might say the same for Tea Partiers. They might be infested by nuts, but the movement has very valid basic points and grievances.

pj Monday, 08 March 2010 at 09:34

The key difference between Birthers and Truthers is that the Birthers suspect their fellow citizens of dishonesty, the Truthers suspect their fellow citizens of mass murder. The first is plausible, the second is paranoid and presumptively projective.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Monday, 08 March 2010 at 10:37

That may well be true, but the Truthers also have much better evidence than do the Birthers.

Per erp, the Birthers’ claims amount to “he won’t show us,” which is suspicious but not definitive, and also trivial. It can also be construed as “he doesn’t respect us enough to feel a need to show us”, which would make the Birthers an ego-based movement primarily driven by wounded pride at being disrespected. That analysis is supported by the laundry-list of irrelevancies that the Birthers apparently feel are critical bits of anti-Obama info, such as President Obama’s “vaunted genius level academic record, his travels on an Indonesian passport, whether or not the Saudi’s paid for law school…”

For instance, AOG has argued that if Obama had released his college records, and they showed that he had been a mediocre student, then that would have been a blow to his chances of being elected. I don’t buy it, since only the far left believes that we should elect Presidents based on their school marks from potentially many decades ago, and they weren’t going to vote for the GOP no matter what.

For almost anybody else who could potentially have been swayed by either of the candidates, the fact that Obama attended a prestigious school, and graduated, is enough. “C = M.D.”

David Cohen Monday, 08 March 2010 at 10:51

First of all, the truthers have no evidence. Nothing you say about the Pentagon is true.

Second, the birthers also have no evidence. We have all the evidence we would ordinarily need to conclude that someone was born in Hawaii, including a certification of that fact from the state of Hawaii. But what the birthers really don’t get is that, even if we wasn’t born in Hawaii, no one cares. He is president and he’s going to stay president. Frankly, even if someone we all knew was foreign born were elected by the people and then by certified by the Electoral College, he would be President and there wouldn’t be anything to do about it.

Harry Eagar Monday, 08 March 2010 at 11:31

It’s not only that the birfers are delusional. Planting that birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser was a particularly clever and forethoughtful move, wasn’t it? It’s that they are some of the most indecent, vile, nasty people in the country.

I know where I could find similar sentiments expressed, in The Fiery Cross, but that’s one of the few places to match them.

The trufers are crazy, but they don’t bring the ick factor that the birfers do.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 08 March 2010 at 12:37

AOG has argued that if Obama had released his college records, and they showed that he had been a mediocre student, then that would have been a blow to his chances of being elected

No, I think it would be a blow to the self image of Obama and his cultists. I agree that it would have made very little difference in terms of the election.

erp Monday, 08 March 2010 at 12:49

Apparently it’s a matter of whose ox is gored. Those on the right think the “truthers” are crazy and those on the left think Bush is a monster who knew about the attack and let thousands of people die so he could take over the world.

The reverse is true about the “birthers.” Those on the left think it’s petty that we should demand to see the actual birth certificate because what we were shown is adequate and even if we knew he was a mediocre student, Obama would have been elected anyway because we don’t demand that presidents have high academic grades.

Rough misses the point here. The academic honors were only the point, because it has been widely broadcast that Obama was a scholar par excellence without providing any proof of same. As an added benefit, if we knew what his academic record was we would be spared reading about his obvious intelligence as the lead sentence in every article about him.

Rough dismisses as trivial Obama’s travel to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on an Indonesian passport, the matriculation at Occidental as a foreign student, the remarks made by Percy Sutton (on tape) that the Saudi’s paid Obama’s law school fees, the 100 mil Annenberg grant … yet he finds compelling a whole bunch of circumstantial bit and pieces of “evidence” that points to a massive cover up as well as pre-knowledge of the attacks.

David says (and I agree) it doesn’t matter whether Obama was born here or not because he was certified by the Electoral College, so he’s the president and will stay that way.

The important thing now is to make sure the conservative grass roots movement isn’t crushed with accusations from both the right and the left and can grow to influence the elections in Novembers as a prelude to Obama’s removal in 2012.

*** However, my greater point was my dismay that those who want answers about Obama’s secret past are defiled while Obama is portrayed in the media as the victim of right wing wingnuts.***

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Monday, 08 March 2010 at 21:39

Nothing you say about the Pentagon is true.

That’s a faith-based statement, not an empirically-provable statement of logic. You want to believe it, but that’s all.

Since NONE of the evidence has been released for independent inquiry, (and some of it the government claims to have destroyed), there’s nothing physical on which to base your assertion - only metaphysical.

…the truthers have no evidence.

There is tons of photographic and video evidence. As I wrote up-thread, none of it is definitive, but there are glaring inconsistencies between the official version of events and the raw footage of the events. One might decide to not contemplate the implications of that, but to claim that there is no evidence is self-delusion.

Rough dismisses as trivial Obama’s travel to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on an Indonesian passport, the matriculation at Occidental as a foreign student…

David says (and I agree) it doesn’t matter whether Obama was born here or not because … he’s the president and will stay that way.

Your second statement explains why the first is trivial. If you truly believed that “it doesn’t matter whether Obama was born here or not because…”, then Indonesian second passport, “foreign student”, who cares? It’s obviously irrelevant.

But the fact that you keep bringing up those issues, and defending the worth of knowing the answers, shows that you care a great deal. I suspect that it’s because “the Birthers are an ego-based movement primarily driven by wounded pride at being disrespected” applies in this case, or as you rephrased it, “my greater point was my dismay that those who want answers about Obama’s secret past are defiled while Obama is portrayed in the media as the victim…”

But I do find this interesting:

…the Saudi’s paid Obama’s law school fees…

Let us suppose that this is true. Mr. Sutton did not explain why the Saudis were interested in sending Barack to Harvard. Since nobody at the time could have known that Obama would wind up as POTUS, it seems likely that whatever reason there was, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal thought that there could be some potential future benefit either to him personally, to the Saudi entity, or to the Islamic world generally. But Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is also a very large client of the Carlyle Group, the world’s largest private equity investment firm. The Carlyle Group has employed as senior advisers such people as James Baker, Arthur Levitt - and George H. W. Bush.

So Saudi money flows freely to all sides of the political spectrum, and further, Saudi Arabia is the lynch-pin of American M.E. strategy, and the most important player in global energy policy. They’re like, kind of a big deal.

Therefore, the previous Saudi connection is simply irrelevant if one is the President of the United States. It just doesn’t matter, as POTUS, if you love or hate the Saudis, or owe your career to them. Both Presidents Bush were good friends of the Saudis, and Obama’s policy towards Saudi Arabia is dictated by the American dependence on them.

In other words, so what?

(And, in the “principles be damned” department, let us contemplate the schizophrenic world of adults, vs the posturing and preening of the mentally immature: America is very good friends with Saudi Arabia and Israel, although Saudi Arabia sends money to help people who actively kill Israelis. There’s also the little matter of global Islamofascist terror, whose genesis was an externalized Saudi religious struggle. Thanks, guys.)

…yet [Good Master Rough] finds compelling a whole bunch of circumstantial bit and pieces of “evidence”…

Anybody with more than a passing knowledge of the American judicial system can tell you how very many people are convicted based on “a whole bunch of circumstantial bits and pieces of evidence.” Ask Mr. Cohen or Mr. Eagar. Scott Peterson is a very good example of this - he got the death penalty based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

erp Monday, 08 March 2010 at 22:05

Rough, for the last time. The question isn’t what’s been sealed away. The question is why it’s been sealed away. I keep bringing it up because that question hasn’t been answered and of course because I have this childish need for Obama to respect me and not dis me … please please be nice to me Barry, old boy, I need to know every little detail of your miraculous life and I need your approbation so much please please. s/off

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Monday, 08 March 2010 at 23:17

Yeah, and as I keep asking, what do you think would happen if all of that stuff were released?

Since you agree, (at least in this thread), that none of it would result in Obama’s removal as POTUS, then what’s the point other than your personal satisfaction?

He’s already won the election, you’re not going to be able to go back with superior knowledge and change history. All of that stuff would be interesting to know, but you seem to think that contemplating the potential answer to “why” will lead to some important insight, that it’s a critical point. However, the answer is both obvious and common, and has been given by many in the threads where you bring it up: Obama wanted to present himself in the best possible light, and that’s easier to do if the masses will accept your claims without demanding verification. Which is exactly what happened.

You say that when you write that “I have this childish need for Obama to respect me and not dis me” it’s sarcasm, but that’s contradicted by the highlighted portions of your earlier statement that “my greater point was my dismay that those who want answers about Obama’s secret past are defiled while Obama is portrayed in the media as the victim…”

One might decide to not contemplate the implications of that…

To be clear, that’s my practical, day-to-day position. While there’s an overwhelmingly critical lesson to be learned from the discrepancies, and the pattern of the gov’t’s handling and disposal of the evidence and debris, there’s no way to deduce precisely and accurately what actually did happen, and it’s unhealthy to dwell on it too much.

All of the important stuff happened many, many, many levels above my pay grade, and there’s absolutely nothing that I could ever realistically hope to do about it. In any case, the most important lessons for the common person about the whole affair are in plain view and available for anyone who cares to see.

pj Tuesday, 09 March 2010 at 08:15

Rough - What’s wrong with personal satisfaction?

In America, we have this tradition that all are equal, the highest government officials are not superior to the lowliest citizen, and we interact as peers and friends, not as master and slave. As peers and friends, we are open and honest, and do not attempt to deceive our fellow citizens.

Obama’s whole approach to politics is built on deception and concealment of the truth. He doesn’t love his fellow citizens, and he doesn’t seek a relationship of friendship and equality, of openness and honesty. He seeks to be master and wants us to submit, and doesn’t believe we need to know anything. He will disclose to us only those pieces of information that advance his interests.

Perhaps the main motivation of the Birthers is the desire to expose of this leftist attitude.

David Cohen Tuesday, 09 March 2010 at 09:16

I am not going to debate 9/11 with you. I’d have better luck debating gravity with my dog. I am, though, glad that you have confessed that you can’t just believe in the Pentagon truther nonsense, but that trutherism is all of a piece. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 09 March 2010 at 11:49

Let’s parse this a little more.

As for birth, the only constitutional question is where Obama was born. Nothing on the certificate could possibly change that. And the Advertiser birth announcement is, in its way, better evidence for where he was born than a certificate. A certificate could be faked.

As for truth, Rough is usually more incisive than he is being here. The best evidence that an airliner hit the Pentagon is that 3 other airliners hit buildings in New York or crashed in Pennsylvania about the same time. However impossible anyone thinks the physical or film evidence from Washington is, it is more impossible to believe it wasn’t the missing 4th airliner.

pj Tuesday, 09 March 2010 at 11:54

David - So your dog believes in gravity, but thinks the anti-gravity dogs have a good case?

erp Tuesday, 09 March 2010 at 12:45

Harry, as I’ve said many times, I believe Obama was born in Hawaii and even if it were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was born elsewhere, his election was certified by the Electoral College, so he is now the president and will remain so until he is voted out of office or finishes a second term — that isn’t the question, the question is WHY has he spent upwards to a million dollars to completely seal off his past????

IMO this isn’t trivial. It goes to the heart of our mass media’s inability to provide the public with accurate information which is their oft stated goal and their willingness to lie and spin issues in such a way as to demonize those who disagree.

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 09 March 2010 at 13:39

We didn’t have to work very hard to demonize the birfers. Do you read their stuff?

erp Tuesday, 09 March 2010 at 16:01

No. My beef isn’t with them, but with your colleagues.

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 10 March 2010 at 11:54

If you are saying they are insignificant, I suppose as a practical matter you are right. As a diagnostic matter, they deserve your attention.

erp Wednesday, 10 March 2010 at 13:33

No, I’m saying that nutcases, like the poor, we’ll always have among us. That’s a given. An expletive deleted media not so much.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Thursday, 11 March 2010 at 07:02

Rough - What’s wrong with personal satisfaction?

Absolutely nothing, unless it’s presented as being a public necessity.

[Obama] doesn’t seek a relationship of friendship and equality, of openness and honesty. He seeks to be master and wants us to submit, and doesn’t believe we need to know anything. He will disclose to us only those pieces of information that advance his interests.

By that standard, he’s exactly like Bush the Younger and the Male Clinton before him. Who was the last President to disclose all known information, rather than only those pieces that advance their interests?

The first example to pop into my mind is that of the Bush the Younger admin’s disingenuous Medicare Part D cost estimates. A perfect example of inequality, closeness and dishonesty, from our former Master to the serfs, who really ought to be grateful ‘cause we don’t know what’s good for us.1

Also, if a majority of Americans are willing to accept such a bargain, to accept assertions rather than substantive evidence, then that’s a shame, but under our system it’s a legitimate way of doing business - unless there’s an actual fraud being perpetrated.

I am, though, glad that you have confessed that you can’t just believe in the Pentagon truther nonsense, but that trutherism is all of a piece.

????

As for truth, Rough is usually more incisive than he is being here.

Many thanks for the implied compliment!!!

1 My point is somewhat undercut by the simple fact that hoi polloi generally don’t do what’s in their long-run best interests. But that doesn’t excuse obfuscating the most basic elements of a proposed program, such as a known best-estimate of costs. And let us consider the effects of enacting a massive benefits program based on dodgy accounting: Some people benefit now, for a period of, say, a dozen years. But the program cannot be maintained, because it simply costs too much. So effectively, it benefits Boomers at the expense of GenX and the Millennials. As an X, my response is “thanks a heap, jerk!”

cjm Friday, 12 March 2010 at 20:49

well, i can save time now and safely ignore all postings by the resident truther.

cohen,

how high does the unemployment of citizens have to get before immigration restrictions are ok with you?

so tell me again how the two parties disagree materially on immigration and illegal aliens?

the future isn’t a new, third, party. the future isn’t improved existing parties. the future is the elimination of all political parties by the same forces melting away the msm like sand castles on the beach.

erp Friday, 12 March 2010 at 21:48

cjm, in a perfect world political parties would be unnecessary, but in our world they’re vital. We must make the Republican leadership either get with the program or make way for some new blood.

Don’t you wonder who those people buying Romney’s book are? He has no chance of being elected president no matter who his opponent might be. He’ll get the royal treatment from the media hoping that he’ll get the nomination and if he does, the big guns will come out and he’ll be trashed.

A third party is handing the victory to the libs. To that end, the media will promote a latter day Perot with all its might.

Hey Skipper Saturday, 13 March 2010 at 01:48
The fact of the matter is that the purported crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon resulted from an extremely unusual, nearly-impossible flight path for a commercial airliner flown by an experienced pilot…

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Unfortunately, having spent 3 years at the Pentagon and being an airline pilot, I only have first hand experience to go on.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Saturday, 13 March 2010 at 01:52

the future is the elimination of all political parties…

If the electorate is comprised of normal people, there will be political parties in any democratic republic. The parties might change, in name or philosophy, but the only way that “all political parties melt away” in some future America is if we move more fully towards totalitarianism. Normal people just don’t care that much about politics, and like what political parties provide: Philosophy, framework, a rallying point, and branded candidates.

[Romney] has no chance of being elected president no matter who his opponent might be.

We might once have said the same of Obama, and yet, look at what happened. McCain was hapless in ‘08, but might have won in ‘00. Bush the Elder seemed invincible at the beginning of ‘92, widely perceived as having no chance of not being re-elected President, no matter who his opponent might be.

The circumstances unique to ‘12, impossible to predict now, will weigh most heavily.

A third party is handing the victory to the libs.

Unless it hands victory to the cons, as in 2000, when in Florida the Green Party got nearly 100,000 votes, most of which would have gone Dem if there were no third parties. The margin of victory in that election was under 600 votes officially; even under the most pro-Bush unofficial-recount standard, the margin was under 2,000 votes.

cjm Saturday, 13 March 2010 at 02:44

skipper, how is it going ? don’t waste your ammo on a “ghost” target.

erp, romney; is that a new laxative? :) forces are in motion, time is marching on. political parties are like bogart movies — light flickering on the cave wall. enjoy the moment, that’s all there is :)

bachus reigns supreme tonight, bring on the malbec.

striker/rough; pull up, pull up!!!

aog: parallel lines never converge, but they never diverge either :0

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Saturday, 13 March 2010 at 06:29

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Take it up with these guys - (general Credentials and Experience) + (specific Credentials and Experience). Y’all can talk shop and hash it out.

[B]eing an airline pilot, I only have first hand experience to go on.
[All emph. add.] September 5, 2007 - …Now retired, Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navy’s ‘Top Gun’ air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. […] Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a ‘Top Gun’ adversary instructor. While in the Navy, he flew F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-14 Tomcats and completed 250 aircraft carrier landings.

Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”

Commander Kolstad adds, “I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did.” …

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training | Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006

Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft.

[All emph. add.] There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.

What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks — invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.

A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how “easy” it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the “open sky”. But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.

And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.

For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.

In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot — and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft. […]

In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard” instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules.

And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!

The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.

Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.

In fact, here’s what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:

Mohammed Atta: “His attention span was zero.”

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: “We didn’t kick him out, but he didn’t live up to our standards.”

Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”

Salem Al-Hazmi: “We advised him to quit after two lessons.” […]

Now let’s take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. […] Although weather reports state this was not the case, let’s say [Hani Hanjour] was lucky enough to experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet — 7 miles — below him, a murky brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).

In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather conditions that day), he would likely have seen clouds below him completely obscuring the ground he was traversing. With this kind of “situational non-awareness”, Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan — he wouldn’t have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was. […]

It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn’t have known where to begin.

But, for the sake of discussion let’s stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour — whose flight instructor claimed “couldn’t fly at all” — somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by themselves before.

Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes — remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).

In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.

To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This still wouldn’t relieve them of the burden of navigation). […]

According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. […]

The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “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.” […]

I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.)

Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.

Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.

At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan — until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.

In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles — and the Global Hawk.) […]

Hani Hanjour and Flight 77’s Unexplained Expert Maneuvers

…Hani Hanjour is credited with being the airplane’s pilot. This is a man who, three weeks before September 11, attempted to rent a Cessna at an airfield in Maryland. Suspicious of his dubious ‘pilot’s license’, officials at the airfield insisted he take a chaperoned test-flight before rental would be approved. He failed his test flight miserably. He could neither control, nor properly land the Cessna. In fact, the instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, “It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all.”[Emph. add.] And yet, the official narrative of 9/11 asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation test pilot. […]

Two seperate CFI’s took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. […]

So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree spiraling dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 ‘cause he couldn’t land it at 65 knots?

[A] pilot contacted the writer to report the following. And while it doesn’t reference Flight 77 specifically, surely the comments apply to all flights that morning. Including AA 77:

“Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.” [Emph. add.]

[Pilots for 9/11 Truth], an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained its 2002 report on American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that, according to the official account, hit the ground floor of the Pentagon after it skimmed over the lawn at 500 mph plus, taking out a series of lamp posts in the process. The pilots not only obtained the flight data but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told them.

According to the report issued by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, there are major differences between the official account and the flight data:

a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

b. All altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense “5 Frames” video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn. [Emph. add.]

d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

As Robert Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, observes, “The information in the NSTB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.” The study was signed by fifteen professional pilots with extensive military and commercial carrier experience. They have made their animation, “Pandora’s Box: Chapter 2,” available to the public. […]

(3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory—flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level—physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible.

(4) Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the enormous engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a “smoking gun” proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained…

erp Saturday, 13 March 2010 at 08:35

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon.

Rough, do you seriously believe that flight 77 didn’t crash into the Pentagon? If it didn’t, where is it? Was it beamed up to the mother ship?

BTW – I don’t care if the Pentagon’s report of the disaster doesn’t jive with computer mock ups, especially since computer mock ups have mucked up much of scientific inquiry of late — AGW come to mind — also in previous incarnations acid rain, global famine, over population … so I’ll just go with those who are tasked with protecting our security and not those engaged in “gotcha” politics.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Saturday, 13 March 2010 at 10:23

Was [American Airlines Flight 77] beamed up to the mother ship?

Obviously.

But really, it’s a bit of a misnomer to think of it as being “beamed up to”, as that implies action or motion. It’s more like… Displaced. It didn’t really go anywhere.

A truthier way to think of it, is as “became one with the mother ship.”

Hey Skipper Saturday, 13 March 2010 at 11:50

In case it matters, I spent 20 years in the Air Force, most of it as a fighter pilot. I am a Fighter Weapons School grad, and flew in Desert Storm.

Every word Nila Sagadevan says is either wrong, misleading, or irrelevant.

With just a couple hours of sim time, a clear day, and some map study beforehand, I guarantee you that anyone with normal hand-eye motor skills could point an airplane at something and hit it. All that nonsense about EFIS and instrument flying is such laughable nonsense that it is a good thing for my keyboard I wasn’t drinking coffee when I read it.

I remember 9/11 well. The weather was clear and a million. On a day like that, I can pick out an individual house from 15,000 feet, the Pentagon from 30 miles, and the Potomac from 150 miles. “… a murky brownish-grey-green landscape …”? I do my best to avoid profanity, but I cannot help myself here: this is bullshit of such intense bullshittiness as to make even flies turn away in disgust.

I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.)

More crap by the steaming cartload. I have seen B52s fly at 20 feet. Is it a gut check? yes. Is it any harder than not hitting the jersey wall while in the fast lane? Not much. That someone could write something like there being a pocket of compressed gas preventing flight at that speed and altitude should be a red flag with fireworks above it that you are in an extremely powerful ignorance field.

To explain: Ground effect occurs when an aircraft’s altitude is less than about 3/4 of its wing span, and acts to increase the efficiency of the wing, so that at any given airspeed and weight, the angle of attack required to balance gravity decreases.

That’s it. Nothing more.

This really isn’t worth the time to shoot gaping holes in it. I have gone a long time without reading something so wall-wall preposterous.

So I will summarize: Based upon my experience as a pilot, with a great deal of that teaching other people to fly, my familiarity with the Pentagon, including having flown by it while landing at National, with an hour on FlightSim, another hour in a fully-fledged flight simulator, a tiny bit of map study, and a clear day, I could teach you to hit your own house.

Heck, the Japanese did the same with Kamikazes. And those buildings were moving.

David Cohen Saturday, 13 March 2010 at 12:20

Seriously, there’s no point engaging the truthers.

cohen,

Are you under the impression that your argument is either more impressive or more likely to be right if you’re rude?

how high does the unemployment of citizens have to get before immigration restrictions are ok with you?

How hot does it have to get outside before you make your bed? The idea that more immigrants means fewer jobs for citizens — that there is a lump of labor to be done, split up among available workers — is wrong, and not only wrong but Marxist. How long have you been a Marxist? If you’re not, why do you imagine that Marx was right about this while wrong about everything else? In fact, it is perfectly obvious that immigration increases the number of available jobs, just like automation does.

Even if it were true, I doubt it would change my position, since the benefit of immigration today, despite it’s current costs, are trivial when measured against the realized benefits of immigration tomorrow.

so tell me again how the two parties disagree materially on immigration and illegal aliens?

Have I ever said that they do? I don’t think they differ materially, because the right American position is pro-immigration. I do think that the parties differ in an interesting way: Democratic ideology points to restricting immigration, but it is politically impossible for them to say so. Republican ideology points to unrestricted immigration, but it is politically impossible for them so say so.

the future isn’t a new, third, party. the future isn’t improved existing parties. the future is the elimination of all political parties by the same forces melting away the msm like sand castles on the beach.

I doubt it, but I don’t really have a dog in that fight. It’s worth noting that you’re making a version of the argument Madison made in Federalist #10.

erp Saturday, 13 March 2010 at 15:44

Skipper and David - Touché!

Rough, “beam up” is only shorthand. Of course, nothing is physically moved — that’s so basic, I didn’t think I needed to explain it.

Hey Skipper Monday, 15 March 2010 at 18:45
Seriously, there’s no point engaging the truthers.

There is no stopping truthers from concocting tortured explanations for the facts, but they do not get to have their own facts.

That link AVRRA posted was an assertion of “facts”. They are all wrong. Only idiots get to think otherwise.

Oh, wait …

The Facts Tuesday, 16 March 2010 at 10:41

“Only idiots get to think otherwise.”

Are these people all idiots? Being that you claim to have 20 years in the USAF and worked at the Pentago, perhaps you know some of these people.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Really, click it.

Have you analyzed the Flight Data Recorder information provided by the NTSB? Why doesn’t it support the govt story of an impact?

This may be the reason these lists grow with pilots who actually place their name to their claims and can be verified, unlike you.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

The lists grow.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Tuesday, 16 March 2010 at 10:44

In fact, it is perfectly obvious that immigration increases the number of available jobs, just like automation does.

But it does so in a positive way only if the immigrants bring with them resources to spend, or in the case of availability of productive work.

If neither is true, then of course the immigrants increase demand for basic life-support functions, but supplying those needs is a cost to society, not a benefit. As for the long-term “realized benefits of immigration tomorrow”, you assume that such benefits will come to fruition, but that’s only one possibility among many.

If merely having idle hands to put towards productive use, could make a society rich, then Africa would be the Jewel of the Earth instead of a festering hell-hole that happens to have raw materials that the developed nations find desirable.

Any given resource, including labor, needs the potential for meaningful use to give it value. And it is in the “meaningful use” category that America falls short, these days.

However, that said, I do agree that making a hedging bet that today’s immigration will be of immense value tomorrow, is worthwhile. Say, a million legal and explicitly permitted immigrants a year, zero non-docs?

Rough, “beam up” is only shorthand. Of course, nothing is physically moved — that’s so basic, I didn’t think I needed to explain it.

Er… That’s actually a misunderstanding, either of physics, or of the technology.

As you may know, “beam up” is a cultural reference to the fictional Star Trek Universe. As it appears that you may not know, using the Star Trek-ian transporters involved being purposefully pulled apart molecule by molecule, having each particle inspected, analyzed, and recorded, and then having the information sent elsewhere using a beam of energy, for use in reconstructing a simulacrum at the receiving station. Because the information had to be sent via a signal which used power, there was a practical limit to the distance over which the technology could be used, hence the term “transporter range”. Being within or without that limit was a plot point in many episodes of the television series. Further, the signal could, (within undefined limits), be diverted or stored for future reconstruction - it didn’t have to be applied immediately.

This is why the “Dr. McCoy” character disliked using the technology - he was unsure about the metaphysical effects of destroying one’s physical self, and then using the resultant personal information to animate what was essentially a golem. It’s also why the possibility existed for “transporter malfunction” due to an incomplete/corrupted/weak signal, of which the television and theater series featured many, including but not limited to: Hideous disfigurement and death, personality change, DNA alteration, reconstructing more than one replica using the same signal information, and being rematerialized in an alternate universe.

Given that matter = energy, and that the transporter “beam”/energy traveled through regular Einsteinian space, being subjected to time and distance effects such as degradation, and also that using the transporter involved not the teleportation of the subject object, but rather its complete and total destruction, subject to but not necessarily involving reconstruction…

It’s a mistake to assert that while “beaming” anything anywhere, “nothing is physically moved.” In fact, using fictional Star Trek-ian transporter technology involves more physical movement than any real-life 21st century transportation technology, such as automobiles or aircraft. Just not in a way with which you’re familiar.

Probably more than you wanted to know, but invaluable if you wish to use a “beam up” reference in the future.

There is no stopping truthers from concocting tortured explanations for the facts, but they do not get to have their own facts.

Sure, I too would very much like to have a set of “facts” presented upon which all can agree.

To that end, it would be very helpful if the gov’t would release copies of the ~100 recordings of the approach path of the object which hit the Pentagon, seized from security cameras at the Pentagon and from businesses and public venues in the surrounding area. Since those recordings will never be used as evidence against anyone in any court of law, and since viewing those records cannot help any future attacker nor harm the security of the nation in any way, why ever have both the Bush the Younger and Obama admins refused to allow independent experts to examine those recordings?

Given that those tapes would likely allow the size, shape, speed and bearing of the object to be incontrovertibly known, what’s the downside, if they do indeed show a Boeing 757 at the asserted speed and heading?

On the other hand, three tapes have been released - none of which show anything definitive. A hundred-ish recordings are available. Most probably show nothing valuable. There are three options:

  1. NONE show anything valuable,
  2. Some show a Boeing 757 doing exactly what the 9/11 Commission reported
  3. Some show something else

If it’s 1. or 2., why release only a few records which show, effectively, nothing? (Although 1. could be problematic if it could be determined that something which ought to have been visible didn’t show up.)

Secondly, thanks for sharing your expertise on the subject of aviation. But I do have a few questions, which, while sometimes pointed, are meant literally and contain no hidden implications or meanings:

I have seen B52s fly at 20 feet. Is it a gut check? yes. Is it any harder than not hitting the jersey wall while in the fast lane? Not much.

  • Nila Sagadevan writes that it’s difficult to believe that a Boeing 757 did so, because it has a relatively low wing-loading, but that military bombers have high wing-loading. Is a B-52 flying 400+MPH at twenty feet an apples-to-apples comparison with a 757 doing the same?
  • Driving in the fast lane involves operating relatively simple, very common equipment, with high visibility and maneuverability, typically traveling at under 100MPH. In this case a completely unqualified and inexperienced pilot supposedly flying this equipment for the first time, flew nap-of-the-earth at 400+MPH. I suggest that doing so is far more than “not much” more difficult than staying in your lane on the Interstate. The physical evidence, and the official version, is that the plane flew twenty feet above the ground, at 400+MPH, for more than a mile. At that altitude and speed, the slightest wrong twitch would mean disaster, and Hani Hanjour would have had no feel whatsoever for the size of his aircraft, nor any way to eyeball the difference between his height above the ground, viewed through the cockpit windows, and how far above the ground was the bottom of the craft and its engines.

In your judgment, how likely is it that a person that two flight instructors deemed incompetent to fly a Cessna at low speed, taking control of totally unfamiliar and hugely massive equipment, could fly it at 400+MPH, twenty feet up, hitting a half-dozen light poles along the way, for over a mile without any significant deviation in altitude, down or up?

To explain: Ground effect occurs when an aircraft’s altitude is less than about 3/4 of its wing span, and acts to increase the efficiency of the wing, so that at any given airspeed and weight, the angle of attack required to balance gravity decreases.

Wouldn’t that mean that a person flying at 400+MPH, upon descending to twenty feet above the ground, would have to know how to adjust the flaps to retain control of the aircraft and maintain absolutely level flight for over a mile, without, for instance, rising up to 100’ and overshooting a 77’-high building?

Based upon my experience as a pilot, with a great deal of that teaching other people to fly, [and given an] hour in a fully-fledged flight simulator…

Hani Hanjour had no access to a fully-fledged flight simulator, and his flight instructors advised him that they couldn’t detect any aptitude for flying in him. Could any amount of time using an arcade flight sim. eventually teach a person without guidance or instruction how to do what would be necessary?

…a tiny bit of map study, and a clear day, I could teach you to hit your own house.

Could you teach a person who had a basic familiarity with light aircraft, but who was not capable of operating same, who was in fact refused further flying lessons due to ineptitude, without access to the physical equipment or a full-fledged simulator, without any practice, on the first try, to fly a 757 in the following manner:

Start at 7000 feet, airspeed approximately 300 knots. Begin a 330 degree spiraling dive, descending at better than 2500 fpm, leveling at 2200 feet, having gained only 30 knots, then accelerate at full power while descending to a hair above the ground, and maintain a rock-steady twenty foot altitude for over a mile, at 360+ knots. All the while displaying such precision and control that air traffic controllers, watching on radar, don’t believe that you’re piloting a commercial aircraft, much less that you aren’t even a pilot and that today’s your first solo flight in any kind of plane.

Seriously.

He’s so bad at flying that people who make their living by getting paid to teach novices how to fly aren’t willing to continue taking his money, but a month later he’s a smooth professional in an aircraft a hundred times larger and more powerful than the ones that he can’t fly, without any sort of training, practice, experience, or even access to a suitable simulator?

The Facts Tuesday, 16 March 2010 at 11:26
Wouldn’t that mean that a person flying at 400+MPH

Actually, it’s closer to 530+ MPH according to the Flight Data Recorder information provided by the NTSB.

This speed is roughly 460 knots. This is 110 knots over the Maximum Operating Limits of the 757. This might explain why so many Capts from United and American Airlines are speaking out raising their “Red Flags” on the govt version of events. Here are just a few. Click here for more.

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret) 30,000+ Total Flight Time 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777 Pan Am, United United States Air Force (ret) Over 100 Combat Missions Flown Command time in: - N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93) - N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

Captain Ross Aimer UAL Ret. CEO, Aviation Experts LLC 40 years and 30,000 hrs. BS Aero A&P Mech. B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings Command time in: - N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93) - N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175) www.AviationExperts.com

Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad 23,000 hours 27 years in the airlines B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines. 20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds Command time in: - N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77) - N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)

Jeff Latas -Over 20 years in the USAF —USAF Accident investigation Board President —Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E —Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch —Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon —Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level -Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways

Guy S. Razer, LtCol, USAF (Ret) 3,500+ Hours Total Flight Time F-15E/C, F-111A/D/E/F/EF, F-16, F-18, B-1, Mig-29, SU-22, T-37/38, Various Cvilian Prop Combat Time: Operation Northern Watch USAF Fighter Weapons School Instructor NATO Tactical Leadership Program Instructor/Mission Coordinator USAF Material Command Weapons Development Test Pilot Combat Support Coordination Team 2 Airpower Coordinator, South Korea All Service Combat Identification Evaluation Team Operations Officer Boeing F-22 Pilot Instructor MS Aeronautical Studies, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

David Cohen Tuesday, 16 March 2010 at 13:33

Skipper:

These idiots have been debunked time and again. What happened on 9/11 is crystal clear; there are no mysteries. That changes nothing. The truthers, to the extent they are sincere (some are not) are mentally ill. I have no more interest in debating their delusions than in arguing with the delusional homeless about CIA mind rays.

Andrea Harris Wednesday, 17 March 2010 at 06:05

So, RoughRoad guy (or Teal Dear guy, as I think of him) is a Truther. Good — now I don’t feel guilty about ignoring his comments.

Hey Skipper Wednesday, 17 March 2010 at 13:53

David:

I know I am going to hate myself in the morning for doing this.

Facts:

This may be the reason these lists grow with pilots who actually place their name to their claims and can be verified, unlike you.

I think you just suggested I am a liar. You wouldn’t do that in person.

And keep all your teeth.

I must admit though, I wasn’t completely truthful — I left out some details. T-37, T-38, F-111, T-34, DC9, A320, MD11, plus a couple hundred hours light civil. AF Fighter Weapons School, NATO Tactical Leadership Program, wing Chief of Safety, T-34 Squadron Commander. Over 2,000 hours as an instructor pilot in the F-111, plus the better part of another 1000 in the T-34 and T-37.

And my name is Jeff Guinn. Look it up, if you wish.

Sure, I too would very much like to have a set of “facts” presented upon which all can agree.<//blockquote>

No, what I mean is that Nila Sagadevan presented assertions that are, regardless of anything else, patently, dead, wrong. Not only does Nila not get to have his (her?) own facts, the mere assertion of them renders everything else Nila says extremely suspect.

First thing to keep in mind: flying is easy if you don’t care to re-use the airplane.

In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs …

Nonsense. On a clear day, which this was, you could take every one of those displays and shove them in the lav. Several weeks ago I, for reasons that don’t matter here, I got cleared for a visual approach to a runway 35 miles away without any kind of instrument landing aids. (When flying big iron, that almost never happens) The weather was clear and a million, just like 9/11. The ONLY instrument I cross checked was the airspeed indicator, and that because I prefer to walk away from my landings.

So, every, and I do mean every, word in that and the succeeding two paras are not so much wrong — they make sense when flying in weather — as so utterly irrelevant as to what actually happened that Nila could have replaced them with a discussion on grinding bay leaves. That they remain on some truther site means people are credulously accepting as somehow dispositive of something other than the author’s incompetence, ignorance, or mental defect.

Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day.

More irrelevance in spades. That elementary exercise involves returning the airplane in a reusable condition, plus being able (and desiring) to interact with other airplanes and the control tower.

However, I promise you that if the goal was to stick an airplane into the control tower, anything past an hour would be overkill for anyone with enough coordination to brush their teeth without poking an eye out.

Now let’s take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. […] Although weather reports state this was not the case, let’s say [Hani Hanjour] was lucky enough to experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited).

Huh? I was alive that day, and the entire NE US was experiencing probably the clearest day of the year, with in-flight visibility probably exceeding 150 miles.

So that para, and each of the four following are complete drivel. Known time from takeoff puts the aircraft within (to be generous) a 50 mile circle. Take control of the airplane. Turn to a heading that points in the direction of the Chesapeake. Look for the Potomac. Look for the Washington Monument. Look for the Pentagon.

Easy. Not hard, not mildly difficult, not slightly consternating. Easy. And not just a little easy, either.

Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

I said it before, but Nila does not get to have this fact. It is, in fact, very possible to fly an airliner at 20 feet and 400 mph. Not only is it possible, it isn’t very hard (saying this as someone who has flown an airplane at 1000 mph and 20 feet), particularly when someone is aiming at the side of a building. It is roughly as hard as catching a baseball.

Every word Nila says in this regard is crap, pure and simple. The wing loading of a 757 is not “light”. At 103 lbs/sq ft, it is not far off of a F15 at 113 lbs/sq ft. Which I have also flown at very low altitude and high speed. From the back seat. On an orientation flight. It was easy. I don’t know what the value is for an B52 offhand, but since it was designed to operate in the same flight regime as a 757, it can’t be vary far off 100 lbs/sq fot.

As for my analogy with the fast lane, I mean you could put your left mirror six inches from the jersey wall at 100 mph and keep it there.

In your judgment, how likely is it that a person that two flight instructors deemed incompetent to fly a Cessna at low speed, taking control of totally unfamiliar and hugely massive equipment, could fly it at 400+MPH, twenty feet up, hitting a half-dozen light poles along the way, for over a mile without any significant deviation in altitude, down or up?

Hanji was deemed incompetent at landing, which involves intersecting a nearly horizontal flight path (approx 3 degrees) with a horizontal surface. Due to the intercept geometry, tiny deviations in airspeed and altitude cause very large deviations in the touchdown. This matters if you want to reuse the airplane.

In contrast, Hanji was aiming for a point on vertical surface. Instead of an intercept of 3 degrees, it was 90 degrees. This makes all the difference in the world. Consequently, I am absolutely certain that, given his previous experience, he could have hit the building. The task is less hard than catching a baseball, or hitting a moving ship.

If Hanji couldn’t do it, then neither could Kamikaze pilots.

Which means this is another “fact” truthers don’t get to have.

Wouldn’t that mean that a person flying at 400+MPH, upon descending to twenty feet above the ground, would have to know how to adjust the flaps to retain control of the aircraft and maintain absolutely level flight for over a mile, without, for instance, rising up to 100’ and overshooting a 77’-high building?

No. It means moving the controls so that the point you are aiming at doesn’t move on the windscreen.

Just like catching a baseball, but easier.

Could you teach a person who had a basic familiarity with light aircraft, but who was not capable of operating same, who was in fact refused further flying lessons due to ineptitude, without access to the physical equipment or a full-fledged simulator, without any practice, on the first try, to fly a 757 in the following manner:
.

Yes. Continually referring to their incompetence is utterly beside the point. Hitting something big on a clear day with an airplane is easy, when you don’t care to re-use the thing. I have washed people out of pilot training who terrified me trying to land, but would have had no trouble hitting a JiffyLube.

———-

So, when you discard everything Nila says that is either completely irrelevant, or objectively wrong — regardless of whether there was an actual conspiracy — there is simply nothing left.

When you further take on board that the intrinsic task of hitting something with an airplane is no harder than catching a ball

Nila does not get to have those facts, and you do not get to use them, because they are wrong, regardless of whether there was a conspiracy.

That this sort of woo shows up in truther narratives is the clearest possible evidence that, for reasons that are a complete mystery to me, truthers simply invent their own facts, no matter how objectively wrong they may be. (Yes, I followed the link.)

But even more more fundamental is this: In order to accord the truther narrative any credibility, I have to believe in some conspiratorial cabal of fiendish geniuses who are simultaneously unable to do the simple and obvious: fake a flight data recorder.

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 17 March 2010 at 15:05

FRough sez: ‘However, that said, I do agree that making a hedging bet that today’s immigration will be of immense value tomorrow, is worthwhile. Say, a million legal and explicitly permitted immigrants a year, zero non-docs?’

Close to my view, which is that I don’t much care how many immigrants come in, as long as the state counts them in one by one. It’s an issue of sovereignty.

On flying, by my math one mile at 400 mph consumes 9 seconds. A lot of time to make many adjustments, but not much time at all if all you have to do is pull the trigger and hold it down, which I imagine would be the mental state of a suicide pilot.

erp Wednesday, 17 March 2010 at 16:44

Skipper, unless David is commenting under the nom de blog, The Facts, he didn’t make the statement which included, “unlike you.”

Hey Skipper Wednesday, 17 March 2010 at 17:39

Two things:

I didn’t aim that at David.

AOG makes preview easy. Preview is your friend. Only idiots do not use preview. Memo to self: do not be an idiot.

erp Wednesday, 17 March 2010 at 18:17

Sorry Skipper, a thousand pardons for misreading your comment.

Hey Skipper Wednesday, 17 March 2010 at 21:03

erp:

AOG makes preview easy. Preview is your friend. Only idiots do not use preview. Memo to self: do not be an idiot.

I only just now realized how confusing that is! I wrote that to me, because of all the typos in my preceding comment, including one in an HTML tag. It was only on re-reading a second ago that I realized it could easily be taken entirely differently. Rest assured, the idiot is on my side of the screen.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 13:02

I don’t much care how many immigrants come in…

While in a perfect world I’d agree, it seems to me that Mr. Cohen is very much mistaken in his analysis of the economic impact of abrupt labor-force changes, in the non-perfect world that we actually inhabit. Given that, and the relative global attractiveness of emigration to the U.S., some limit to immigration seems prudent.

…as long as the state counts them in one by one.

That seems absolutely mandatory to me, as well. Fingerprints & DNA.

ߦ ߦ ߦ

Thanks for the reply, Skipper.

[F]or reasons that are a complete mystery to me, truthers simply invent their own facts, no matter how objectively wrong they may be.

Probably for the same reasons that Birthers, religionists, immigration-debaters of all stripes, etc., make stuff up. Wherever there’s mystery, humans like to fill in the blanks, and it’s simply the way of folk to make assumptions that conform to what they think they know about the world.

I continually refer to the demonstrated incompetence of the hijackers because, in my youth, I used to operate land-based heavy equipment. While not difficult, it was complex, and if a person who was incompetent at driving a regular automobile, and who had never before even been familiarized with the controls, had pulled me from my seat and taken over, the odds of them successfully performing some routine loop-the-loop maneuvers before intentionally crashing into the broad side of a barn… Well, not zero, but very low.

If Hanji couldn’t do it, then neither could Kamikaze pilots.

Almost all Kamikazies crashed into the deck and superstructures of their targets. Very, very few skimmed along the wavetops at max speed before holing their targets at the waterline.

A charge is made, re: NYC, that “regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”

Is this hyperbole, incompetence on the part of the simulating pilots, something else?

The résumés of the Pilots for 9/11 Truth seem impeccable; dozens of people with more hours of flight time than I’ve been alive; several aircraft accident investigators, all with multiple decades of experience; a couple of aerobatic flyers with years of experience…

They seem to think that it’s questionable that the hijackers could have flown as the hijacked flights did, or that the resultant crash scenes are unambiguous.

Are they merely attention-seekers?

You write that flying a 757 is so easy that virtually anyone could do it with very little prior familiarization, as long as they didn’t attempt to land. Is there any reason that these other vastly-experienced pilots disagree with that assessment?

The Facts Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 18:20
I think you just suggested I am a liar. You wouldn’t do that in person.

And keep all your teeth.

lol, why am I not surprised we’re dealing with a typical Internet Tough Guy. Hilarious.

Is this you Jeff?

JEFFREY DAVID SOLT GUINN

Address Street 8508 LASSEN CIR City EAGLE RIVER State AK County ANCHORAGE Zip Code 99577-9490 Country USA

Medical

Medical Class: First Medical Date: 1/2010

  1. MUST HAVE AVAILABLE GLASSES FOR NEAR VISION.

Certificates

DOI: 2/18/2008 Certificate: AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT Rating(s): AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND COMMERCIAL PRIVILEGES AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND

Type Ratings

A/MD-11

Limits

ENGLISH PROFICIENT. MD-11 CIRC. APCH. - VMC ONLY. MD-11 LIMITED TO FAR 121.543(b)(3)(i) OPERATIONS AT FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP .

So Jeff, tell us, do you feel a 757 or 767 can be operated and maneuvered precisely at 150 knots over Vmo to hit a target with a 25 foot margin for error by a kid who couldnt control a 172 at 65 knots and zero time in type? They did not have any sim training. Have you reviewed the FDR Data provided by the NTSB? Why doesn’t the data support an impact with the Pentagon?

NTSB Data Summary and Findings

Why do numerous independently corroborated witnesses, including Pentagon Police Officers place the aircraft on an approach opposite the physical damage at the Pentagon?

Interviews With Witnesses

Why are so many pilots, aviation professionals, Aircraft Accident Investigators et al, questioning the govt story of events? Why are the list growing? Are they ALL “idiots” and “mentally ill”? If so, Have you reported them to the FAA to pull their medicals? Have you actually reviewed ANY of the data? Or do you just make up excuses to suit your cognitive dissonance while threatening others on the interwebs… try actually studying the data tough guy as your excuses are as empty as your threats.

Harry Eagar Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 18:41

I hesitate to bait devotees, but the question ‘are they all “idiots” and “mentally ill”? ’ has an answer and it’s: Mostly, yes.

Being mentally ill doesn’t mean you cannot fly a plane. Certain forms of it, though, mean you cannot meaningfully analyze an accident scene. I have a little inside knowledge about the truthers — some of them with apparent credentials — who believe big, fast airplanes couldn’t have knocked down the World Trade towers. Are they crazy? As loons.

The Facts Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 18:55
…the question ‘are they all “idiots” and “mentally ill”? ’ has an answer and it’s: Mostly, yes.Being mentally ill doesn’t mean you cannot fly a plane

Pilots cannot hold a Flight Medical if they are “mentally ill”. Which means they should be grounded. Therefore, if you feel these pilots are “mentally ill”, you should report them to the FAA. Be sure to give your full name as the FAA requires and enforces false statements made by Internet Tough Guys. If you don’t report them, you should start thinking about taking the train for your travels as almost every major airline, many regionals, fractionals, corporate and every branch of the military are represented at Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

Keep in mind, there are also numerous Aircraft Accident Investigators, FDR experts, Aircraft Mechanics, Avionics Techs.. .etc, listed at Pilots For 9/11 Truth. One Aircraft Accident Investigator teaches Aircraft Accident Investigation at one of the premier Aviation Universities on this planet. There are also Aviation Attorneys listed who have litigated Accident Investigations.

They are all “mentally ill” according to you. Kind of like those who attempted to posit the theory that the world is round were “mentally ill” at one point in time I suppose.

Be sure to click the links above as the lists grow and get updated regularly.

erp Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 19:57

Harry, IIRC, the buildings were felled by an aviation fuel fire, they weren’t knocked down by an airplane.

Hey Skipper Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 21:05

AVRRA:

Probably for the same reasons that Birthers, religionists, immigration-debaters of all stripes, etc., make stuff up.

This is much like religion, with a key difference. Religious claims are based upon fact claims that occurred in special circumstances (natural laws suspended) a long time ago. That means those claims cannot be contested upon whether they actually happened, because there is simply no evidence that they didn’t.

In contrast, Nila Sagadevan makes claims of fact that are demonstrably either irrelevant or wrong. Nila does not get to “have” those claims, anymore than I would get to have the claim that the brakes on your car are squealing because the tires are dirty.

You should stop referring to the incompetence of the hijackers because their incompetence is no more relevant than a dirty tire is to squealing brakes.

Safely operating an aircraft does, in fact, require a great deal of competence.

Pointing it at something does not, particularly when you don’t care to re-use the airplane.

As the Kamikazes irrevocably prove. The reason most Kamikazes dove onto their targets, which were moving at about 30 mph and shooting back, is that the airplanes were faster in a dive, and harder to hit with AAA. (Contrast Ens. Gay’s torpedo squadron with the dive bombers at Midway). But there are plenty of pictures of guys coming in at wavetop height.

Those pilots had essentially no experience, yet, if not shot down, hit their maneuvering targets nearly every time. That is an objective fact directly contradicting the assertion that essentially completely untrained people cannot hit things with airplanes.

“regarding your comments on flight simulators, … How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”

Hyperbole or incompetence. Hmmm. Tough call.

Flight simulators are amazing, but one of the things they don’t do particularly well is daylight visuals. That is for two reasons. First, the display is two dimensional. Second, except for operating on the airfield (which is done at slow speed), detailed daylight visuals — particularly beyond roughly 45 degrees off centerline — just aren’t important for the task at hand.

Even more telling, maneuvering at lower altitudes relies very much on peripheral vision, which is completely absent in an airline flight simulator.

In order for their conclusion to follow from the premise, these guys must also say this: Because they couldn’t do that maneuver in the sim, they could not do it in the real airplane, either.

Nonsense. The reason they couldn’t do it in the sim was due to seriously compromised sim visual limits, which did not exist for the hijackers. (Oh, and, BTW, there is almost no sense of g-loading during maneuvering flight in a sim).

So this assertion is simply not available as a fact.

You can settle this for yourself. Get a set of driving controls for a computer racing game (iRacing is particularly good), then try driving around the track. Is that easier, harder, or the same as, driving a real car?

The résumés of the Pilots for 9/11 Truth seem impeccable …

So is mine.

Which means a resume battle isn’t going to decide the issue.

Like I mentioned above, you can get your own evidence. If, in trying a racing simulation game, you find it significantly different than driving a car, then you must conclude that their assertion is not a fact for reasons that bear precisely on the point at hand. They are wrong, pure and simple, and for reasons that should bring into serious question their believability, regardless of resume.

I am not a psychologist, so I am purely speculating here, but I think these people are obsessives: they are so obsessed by the conclusion that there is no combination of evidence and reasoning that could get them to change their minds.

I happened upon the tail end of a Discovery Channel show on TWA800 that used the wing center section from a B737, set up to replicate the conditions inside the doomed airliner’s fuel tank.

Of course, there was a highly qualified retired TWA Capt explaining how it is impossible for the tank to have blown up on its own, so the airplane must have been shot down.

The B737 center section comprehensively detonated.

Whereupon the TWA Capt then insisted that because the B737 tank blew up differently (i.e. more symmetrically), TWA800 was shot down.

Obsessive.

_______________

The Facts

Yes, that is me.

And, yes, I took a look at the stuff. I noticed right off the bat that the depiction of the “common response strategy” for hijackings prior to 9/11 was dead wrong.

I also noticed repeated reference to .csv FDR files.

.csv stands for comma separated values, which is one way you can save data from an Excel spreadsheet.

.csv files are not FDR data. Correctly extracting and correlating FDR data is not easy or cheap. In this case, it is also utterly pointless. There is no end of evidence of what happened, and no amount of evidence will disabuse obsessives of their fixations otherwise.

The Facts Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 22:12
And, yes, I took a look at the stuff. I noticed right off the bat that the depiction of the “common response strategy” for hijackings prior to 9/11 was dead wrong.

Really? Which part? Are you telling me you would have given up your airplane prior to 9/11 to a man holding a boxcutter and go sit in the back with the passengers as reportedly did the alleged crew of American 77? Interesting to know being that you’re with FDX. Thank goodness you’re only relief crew. Hmmm… you might want to sit down and have a chat with the crew of FDX 705.

I also noticed repeated reference to .csv FDR files. .csv stands for comma separated values, which is one way you can save data from an Excel spreadsheet. .csv files are not FDR data.

Once again you demonstrate your poor research ability. The csv files were provided by the NTSB. It is a spreadsheet of 1100 parameters.

The NTSB also provides an animation reconstruction based on the FDR data and raw .fdr files downloaded directly from the Crash Memory Unit. Since you probably won’t trust the above download, feel free to get your own from ntsb.gov FOIA request form. It takes about 3 weeks to a month to receive and its free. But if my experience with you is any indication, you’re not interested in data or fact, you prefer making excuses.

To save you some time, you may want to also review this post as every one of your tired and ignorant augments had been addressed ad nauseam several years ago.

Correctly extracting and correlating FDR data is not easy or cheap. In this case, it is also utterly pointless. There is no end of evidence of what happened, and no amount of evidence will disabuse obsessives of their fixations otherwise.

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of the topic. Clearly you do not understand that the FDR data has already been extracted by the NTSB and analyzed by numerous Aircraft Accident Investigators and FDR experts. Clearly you also do not understand FDR data is evidence and used in a court of law all the time. Matter of fact, it is being used in this case as well.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Sign Affidavit In Lawsuit Brought By Pentagon Survivor

Try doing some actual research Jeff before you make yourself look more ignorant.

The Facts Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 22:19

By the way Jeff, TWA800 was a B747, not a B737 as you stated twice. (I could understand a typo if it happened once, but twice is clearly due to ignorance.)

Get your facts straight Jeff, then engage your fingers. You’re sinking fast.

David Cohen Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 22:47

Please don’t bait the mentally ill.

Hey Skipper Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 23:30

I’ll deal with the easy stuff first.

By the way Jeff, TWA800 was a B747, not a B737 as you stated twice. (I could understand a typo if it happened once, but twice is clearly due to ignorance.)

The show, as I specifically said, used a center section from a B737, set up to replicate the conditions in TWA800. I never once said, or implied, TWA800 was a 737, which would be crystal clear to anyone with even moderate reading skills.

The point of the show was to see whether the alleged conditions inside the fuel tank could lead to an explosion. They did. Which had no discernible affect on the guest truther.

Interesting to know being that you’re with FDX. Thank goodness you’re only relief crew.

Interesting to know that, in this simple case, you have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

Are you telling me you would have given up your airplane prior to 9/11 to a man holding a boxcutter and go sit in the back with the passengers as reportedly did the alleged crew of American 77?

The common strategy prior to 9/11 was to accede to hijacker demands in order to ensure passenger safety.

How do I know? I was flying for a passenger airline then.

You will, of course, remember hijackings where airplanes flew all over heck and gone, and had hijackers in the cockpit all the while.

After 9/11, the common strategy changed completely. No matter how many pax are getting killed in back, the crew will take the airplane to the closest suitable airport where it will be met with armed force.

FDX 705 was entirely different: there were no passengers, and the jumpseater attacked the crew with the crashaxe. It wasn’t a hijacking, but rather an attempt to crash the airplane. Other than that, though, you are exactly on point.

Once again you demonstrate your poor research ability. The csv files were provided by the NTSB. It is a spreadsheet of 1100 parameters.

Once again you demonstrate poor reading comprehension. Go back and re-read what I wrote, but slower this time. Move your lips if that helps. The .csv data is not FDR data, it is extracted from it, and uncorrected for anything.

For instance, at this looney bin site, the guy proves the NTSB animation is wrong, because the FDR heading is ten degrees off of the purported ground track.

That is barking mad. Do you know why?

____________

But even more fundamentally, truthers like you insist I believe there is some fiendishly ingenious cabal capable of organizing, and keeping secret, a plot of gordian complexity.

And can’t manage to plant convincing FDR data.

____________

Oh, and one other thing. I made myself accountable. Who are you?

The Facts Friday, 19 March 2010 at 01:25

Clearly you haven’t a clue how the data is extracted from the FDR. The data in the raw file from the CMU is in serial bit stream format and cannot be analyzed until it is decoded and put into a spreadsheet, eg. a csv file. In other words, raw FDR data is a series of zeros and ones. The decoded data is put into a spreadsheet and contains 1100 parameters. Heading, pitch, altitude, airspeed, yoke movement, N1, N2… etc etc. It is data recorded from the DAU, ADC.. etc.. just as the data you see on your instruments. It doesn’t have to be “corrected”. Stop making sh’t up. Open the file and look for yourself.

Also, the FDR heading data is NOT “10 degrees off” the ground track. The animation map was rotated the wrong direction based on mag variation, however the NTSB refuses to fix it or note it in their FOIA Cover letters. The FDR heading data is 61.5 degrees true. This lines up with the physical damage (although it misses pole 2).

The last data point in the file is 173 feet Pressure altitude. Now tell us Internet Tough Guy, What is True Altitude with a local altimeter setting of 30.22? Do you know the definition of Pressure Altitude? How high is the roof of the Pentagon above sea level? Do you know the time it takes to record data to the CMU from the sensor? Do you know what TSO-124 is? Why do so many witnesses place the aircraft opposite the physical damage? Why does the FBI refuse to positively identify the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11?

Again, do you think you can maneuver a 757 or 767 at 150 knots over Vmo to hit a target with a 25 foot margin for error? Do you think a pilot who cannot control a 172 at 65 knots can do it? Do you know why Boeing sets airspeed limits for their aircraft? Do you think 150-180 knots over Vmo is excessive? Do you know what Cp vs CG means? Do you know what flutter is? Do you think there is any elevator authority left at such a high speed over an established Vmo? Why haven’t you bothered to open up the csv files, look at them, and realize it is data from the FDR extracted and compiled by the NTSB? Why do you refuse to hear what Pentagon Police Officers have to say? Why do you bury your head in the sand? Why do you avoid these questions?

The Common Strategy prior to 9/11 was not to give up your aircraft to anyone who demands it. You know this, I know this, and so does every other pilot who flys the line. If you would have given up your aircraft to an armed hijacker and go sit in the back with your passengers (or in your case, boxes), FDX CP might want to bring you in for a carpet dance regarding your judgment. How exactly does sitting with your pax and giving your airplane to a stranger coincide with pax safety? It doesn’t. Plain and simple.

Hey Skipper Friday, 19 March 2010 at 02:37

Actually, I have plenty of clues about FDRs; enough to know that a .csv file is nearly worthless for forensic purposes.

Also, the FDR heading data is NOT “10 degrees off” the ground track.

It most certainly is. The declination in Virginia is 10E; therefore, an uncorrected FDR mag heading will not match the true bearing of the purported ground track.

Just as anyone even slightly versed in altimetry would tell you that an airplane going that speed that close to the ground is going to require corrections to altimeter data because the air under the aircraft is going to be constrained by the presence of the ground. This will have the effect of increasing static pressure, which, in turn, is like increasing the altimeter setting, which makes the indicated altitude higher than the true altitude.

Which is, among many other reasons, a .csv is fine for constructing an animation, but positively misleading for determining specific parameters.

Again, do you think you can maneuver a 757 or 767 at 150 knots over Vmo to hit a target with a 25 foot margin for error? Do you think a pilot who cannot control a 172 at 65 knots can do it?

What is it with you guys and Vmo? I can only imagine — and be increasingly unsurprised by so concluding — that you guys have no clue what Vmo means.

Not only could I hit the side of the Pentagon at that speed with less than a 25 foot error, I could pick which window I was going to go through.

As for your hypothetical 172 pilot, 25 feet is certainly not out of the question. Besides, you are making the kind of mistake so characteristic of obsessives: assuming what he hit was what he was aiming at. For all either of us know, he was aiming to hit “ground zero” and missed. You create a false requirement for precision, then use that false requirement as requiring explanation.

Not only do you not get to have your own facts, you don’t get to expect anyone to view as logical that which rejects logic.

Why do you bury your head in the sand? Why do you avoid these questions?

Because I already know the answers to the important ones, and would have to be in a permanent post vegetative state to care about the rest.

The Common Strategy prior to 9/11 was not to give up your aircraft to anyone who demands it. You know this …

I’ve tried to be patient with you, but it is getting increasingly difficult. Stop telling me what I know: I sat through hijacking training both pre- and post-9/11, so I have the handicap of having nothing beyond first hand knowledge to work on here.

The “common strategy” simply failed to take on board the possibility of hijackers using airplanes as cruise missiles. Instead, it revolved around historical experience, which was almost exclusively that of hijackings as political statements.

________________

Above you accused me of ignorance wrt TWA800 and being a “reserve pilot”.

Did you forget to admit your egregious mistakes and apologize?

Please tell us, Internet Jackass.

The Facts Friday, 19 March 2010 at 03:16

Wow, look at all that tap dancing. Hilarious.

“Uncorrected FDR mag heading”? Clearly you don’t know the FDR records Mag, True, Course and Heading. It also records Wind direction and Wind speed from the FMC. The FDR True Course data is 61.5 in the csv file.. really.. go look. It doesn’t need to be “corrected”. The map (satellite image overlay) in the animation produced by the NTSB was rotated the wrong way based on Mag variation. The FDR data in the csv file is data that is complied by the NTSB with time stamps for each second of flight till 09:37:45, the calculated time of “impact” according to the NTSB. It is used and analyzed by Aircraft Accident Investigators. Clearly you aren’t even close to being one considering you didn’t even know the FDR records True Course. The data provided by the NTSB does not support an impact with the Pentagon. Again, this is one of the many reasons this list grows with aviation professionals with more impressive resumes than yours.

Vmo is Velocity Max Operating. Please watch and learn from American and United Capts who have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. All 4 of them.

Also, there is nothing “hypothetical” about Hani Hanjour being refused to rent a 172 because he couldn’t control it at 65 knots. Its exactly what happened and is reported widely. Please do your research. How exactly did he control a 757 at 150 knots over Vmo with a 25 foot margin for error and zero time in type?

“I couldn’t believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had,” said Peggy Chevrette, the JetTech manager.

“The thing that really concerned me was that John had a conversation in the hallway with Hani and realized what his skills were at that point and his ability to speak English,” Chevrette said.

Chevrette said she was surprised when the FAA official suggested the school might consider getting a translator to help Hanjour.

“He offered a translator,” Chevrette said. “Of course, I brought up the fact that went against the rules that require a pilot to be able to write and speak English fluently before they even get their license.”

Tell us Skipper, why would a FAA Inspector recommend a translator for a pilot who supposedly already had a Commercial certificate? This does not concern you in the least?

It has also been proven based on precedent and data that the Boeing 767 tears itself apart at 65 knots over Vmo. Allegedly, the aircraft which struck the South tower exceeded Vmo by more than 150 knots. Impossible for a stock 767.

So, clearly you cannot hit a “specific” window of a building at such speeds in a broken aircraft.

Jeff, ever notice your crews calling in sick a lot when assigned to fly with you? lol

Hey Skipper Friday, 19 March 2010 at 03:54
Clearly you don’t know the FDR records Mag, True, Course and Heading.

To be quite candid, I am not absolutely certain what parameters an FDR records, but I very much doubt that the FDR records data that can be derived, or that is meaningless.

For instance, we can display true heading, but never do, so it isn’t relevant. Also, if Mag and aircraft location are known, then you can derive true from mag — no point in recording it. If position over time is known, then you can derive course (which is position integrated over time), so no point in recording that, either.

Vmo is the maximum certificated operating speed. Exceeding that speed means you are using up engineering margins; at some point, things are going to start coming off the airplane.

However, Boeing is renowned for building very strong aircraft. I have no doubt that for brief periods, in smooth air, that the airplane could have exceeded Vmo by 150 knots and stayed together. Particularly because, at low altitude Vmo is far less than Mmo.

How exactly did he control a 757 at 150 knots over Vmo with a 25 foot margin for error and zero time in type?

To repeat, you have absolutely no idea what he was trying to hit, so you don’t know he got within 25 feet of it. You do not get to have that fact. If he was aiming for “ground zero”, then he missed by a hundred yards.

Second, aiming an airplane at something like a building and hitting it is so easy even you could do it.

________________

You still owe me a couple apologies (at least), and you need to put a civil tongue in your head.

The Facts Friday, 19 March 2010 at 04:08

“Actually, I have plenty of clues about FDRs…” - Jeff Guinn

.… his following post…

“To be quite candid, I am not absolutely certain what parameters an FDR records…” - Jeff Guinn

Make up your mind Jeff…

”…and you need to put a civil tongue in your head.” - Jeff Guinn

You lost that privilege with this little threat of yours…

“I think you just suggested I am a liar. You wouldn’t do that in person.

And keep all your teeth.”

Ok, we’re done here Jeff. Thanks for finally admitting you really don’t have a clue when it comes to the FDR data and are using pure speculation based on an argument from incredulity and what you been told to believe by your govt. Stop by the Pilots For 9/11 Truth forum if you wish to learn something about the facts of 9/11, the FDR and witnesses. you know, evidence that is being introduced into a court of law. Don’t forget to keep an eye on the list as it does get updated regularly.

As to your question of who I am. I am one of the people on the above linked list. Fly safe.. :-)

David Cohen Friday, 19 March 2010 at 08:26

For what it’s worth (absolutely nothing), the lawsuit Facts is all excited about was dismissed last Monday.

The court found that it was “the product of cynical delusion and fantasy.”

Is this going to give Facts and his friends a single second of doubt? No.

erp Friday, 19 March 2010 at 09:49

I hope someone exposes The Facts’ identity and credentials — inquiring minds want to know.

Hey Skipper Friday, 19 March 2010 at 11:02
As to your question of who I am. I am one of the people on the above linked list.

Wow, is that ever a profile in courage.

Regarding the FDR parameters: several truther sites made one of two things clear, either the .csv contained only mag heading, or the sites didn’t know any better. I followed The Facts link, which itself had a link to a parameters list. It was broken in 2006, with a promise to be fixed soon. It is still broken.

I did look at 9/11 PFT. Confirmed what The Facts has displayed so prominently here: a bunch of very unpleasant obsessives for whom no amount of evidence would cause the tiniest shudder to their elaborately pre-determined conclusions.

Here is an excellent discussion of FDRs and associated .csv files.

_______________

David, you were right: engaging truthers leads only to a strong desire to take a shower. In my defense, having relief taken off from Newark, relief flown across the Atlantic and relief landed at Charles de Gaulle airport, I had a day in a hotel room without heck all to do.

Hey Skipper Friday, 19 March 2010 at 11:33

Further FWIW.

I tracked down the NTSB report.

The .csv file contains only mag heading.

Just sayin.

FDR Facts Friday, 19 March 2010 at 13:02

Jeff,

The parameters you are looking for are TRACK ANGLE MAG and TRACK ANGLE TRUE. This is the Mag/True Course. TRUE HEADING CAPT, TRUE HEADING F/O, MAG HEADING CAPT, MAG HEADING F/O are the heading parameters. If you download the NTSB csv file, they can be found in alphabetical order along the top of the columns (You also have to open the csv file in parts as Excel only opens 256 columns at a time and there are 1158 columns of data). American Airlines custom made Data Frame Layout 757-3b_1.TXT as noted in the NTSB pdf labeling all 1100 parameters recorded by American Airlines 757’s — along with their conversion formula’s from serial bit stream format and word position when stored in the Crash Memory Unit — can be downloaded here.

Best of luck.

Harry Eagar Friday, 19 March 2010 at 13:35

Cynical delusion and fantasy? Somebody really ticked off that judge.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 19 March 2010 at 14:55

I am still waiting for the explanation of what happened to the actual airplane.

erp Friday, 19 March 2010 at 16:52

aog, you must have missed Rough’s explanation that it’s (the plane’s) molecules were disassembled and reassembled at a location off planet.

erp Friday, 19 March 2010 at 16:54

er — that’s “its molecules” — senior moments coming closer and closer together.

Hey Skipper Saturday, 20 March 2010 at 00:42
The parameters you are looking for are TRACK ANGLE MAG and TRACK ANGLE TRUE.

My mistake. The first graphic I saw in the NTSB report that had flight parameters showed only Mag Heading. Several pages later, there is one with both Mag and True, which I saw too late.

However, this still proves my point. A truther site immediately concluded that the apparent discrepancy was real, rather than looking first to much simpler explanations.

Just as with the issue of indicated altitude. The complex explanation is that the airplane was not where it was alleged to be.

The simple explanation is that the .csv values for altitude do not take into account calibration error or altimeter lag. Calibration error is particularly difficult to deal with, because those values are developed in flight test, so there is no way to know what the real error is 150 knots past Vmo. What is certain is that treating the .csv values as if they mirror reality is simply wrong.

The thing I find most perplexing is why a few people fixate on tiny discrepancies — or simply invent facts — as proof of some byzantine conspiracy, rather than determine up front whether the discrepancies are in fact just that.

FDR Facts Saturday, 20 March 2010 at 01:37

Skipper,

No one has claimed the FDR data “mirrors reality” except for L3 Communications who manufacture the FDR. Matter of fact, many aviation professionals who have signed on to Pilots For 9/11 Truth once believed everything the govt and mainstream media has told them (I was one of them). They signed on to P4T due to the fact they are Aircraft Accident Investigators, FDR Experts, Avionics Techs and Professional pilots who train and analyze FDR data regularly through their careers and understand FDR data is State-Of-The-Art and is much more accurate than what the NTSB has provided for American 77 and United 93… (Read: The data should support an impact, it does not).

This is not just a 9/11 issue, but a Flight Safety issue. Pilots and many other aviation professionals, including passengers, rely on sound and accurate Flight Data in the event of a disaster. You claim FDR Data cannot be used for Foresic investigation. You are wrong. You have been proven wrong time and time again.

For some reason, you don’t seem too concerned with the many issues raised in this thread, and instead make excuses based on your incredulity (look it up).

By the way, the thread you linked to at JREF while claiming it was a “good discussion on the FDR/csv files”, was started in 2006 before most of the information became available. The person who started that thread (“Anti-Sophist”), hasn’t been seen since early 2007 and never had the “courage” to offer his real name (he disappeared when pressured). The rest of the people contributing to that thread in support of the govt story either have zero training in aviation, are rumored to be a stroke victim and grounded (eg. Beachnut, just read his posts to understand), or are banned if they make a solid argument.

Fly safe.

FDR Facts Saturday, 20 March 2010 at 02:37

Sorry, forgot to include this…

Skipper, you claim “altimeter lag” might be a purpose for the discrepancy in PA.

Wait for it…

Yes.. you are wrong again.

Do FDX MD-11’s show more than 400 feet of “altimeter lag” in their ADC/EFIS systems on a moderate descent? According to you, they do.

According to American Airlines Commander Ralph Kolstad, who has actual time in N644AA (the aircraft which reportedly hit the Pentagon) and was an Adversary Instructor at TOPGUN, Miramar (“Viper”, “Jester”, for you layman/Tom Cruise types), such a notion is absurd. Listen to the interview.

By the way Jeff, you never answered my question. You know Jeff Latas? Guy Razer? They also attended Fighter Weapons School and flew the F-111. They may have instructed you? Ever actually used TWS mode Slammers on Northern watch in a Strike Eagle?

Didn’t think so… :-)

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Saturday, 20 March 2010 at 04:26

aog, you must have missed Rough’s explanation that the plane’s molecules were disassembled and reassembled at a location off planet.

No, actually. What I wrote was THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

Click here to review.

I am still waiting for the explanation of what happened to the actual airplane.

If it didn’t hit the Pentagon, then that information can be assumed, but not deduced.

In any case, the issue is of secondary importance, since if it can be firmly established that AA 77 hit the Pentagon, then we know what happened to it.

But it’s a logical fallacy to think that “the plane is missing, therefore it must have hit the Pentagon.” Anyone who’s read much history, and fiction, as I assume that you have, knows that appearances can be deceiving.

And to further the end of attempting to find out what happened to the actual airplane:

It would be very helpful if the gov’t would release copies of the ~100 recordings of the approach path of the object which hit the Pentagon, seized from security cameras at the Pentagon and from businesses and public venues in the surrounding area. Since those recordings will never be used as evidence against anyone in any court of law, and since viewing those records cannot help any future attacker nor harm the security of the nation in any way, why ever have both the Bush the Younger and Obama admins refused to allow independent experts to examine those recordings?

Given that those tapes would likely allow the size, shape, speed and vector of the object to be incontrovertibly known, what’s the downside, if they do indeed show a Boeing 757?

On the other hand, three tapes have been released - none of which show anything definitive. A hundred-ish recordings are available. Most probably show nothing valuable. There are three options:

1) NONE show anything valuable,

2) Some show a Boeing 757 doing exactly what the 9/11 Commission reported

3) Some show something else

If it’s 1. or 2., why release only a few records which show, effectively, nothing? (Although 1. could be problematic if it could be determined that something which ought to have been visible, didn’t show up.)

FreedomOfSpeech Saturday, 20 March 2010 at 05:35

For those who understand that your govt may be lying to you.…

Google: “F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage”

Google: “9/11 Aircraft ‘black Box’ Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent”

Google: “FBI Refuses To Confirm Identities Of 4 Aircraft Used During 9/11 Attacks”

Many more here.

Remember, by you reading the above, you may be “nuts”.

David Cohen Saturday, 20 March 2010 at 08:07

And here we see the truthers sinking into cynical delusion and fantasy.

FOS, who no doubt sees himself as a brave truth-teller, points us to the FBI as a reliable source. So, what does this reliable source think happened on 9/11. It thinks that 19 mostly Saudi hijackers linked to Al Qaeda flew four passenger planes into the twin towers, the Pentagon and a big hole in Pennsylvania.

We can believe the FBI, right?

These people are mentally ill. Some, if they stop smoking pot, will get better. Most won’t. It’s just mean to poke at them.

David Cohen Saturday, 20 March 2010 at 08:08

BTW, not “nuts.” Literally, mentally ill.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 20 March 2010 at 09:28

AVRRA;

I am fine with supporting the release of those tapes. I think that’s a reasonable position to take.

But with regard to AA 77, any theory that purports to explain events has to explain the events, not just cherry picked discrepancies.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Saturday, 20 March 2010 at 09:54

FOS, who no doubt sees himself as a brave truth-teller, points us to the FBI as a reliable source. […] We can believe the FBI, right?

Well, you seem to believe that you can trust the FBI. So therefore, you must find it passing odd if the FBI didn’t attempt to identify the wreckage, or can’t confirm the serial numbers of the crashed planes.

And if the FBI isn’t a reliable source, then their official storyline is inherently suspect, yes?

So I fail to see the “cynical delusion and fantasy” in using the FBI’s actions and documents to point out discrepancies in the official explanations of the events.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Saturday, 20 March 2010 at 10:26

But with regard to AA 77, any theory that purports to explain events has to explain the events, not just cherry picked discrepancies.

If the plane didn’t crash into the Pentagon, then of course the aircraft and passengers have been, at best, detained and hidden. But in that scenario, how can anybody outside of direct decision-makers and acting agents know what happened, and where?

Which is why IMO the first step is to determine whether or not the aircraft in question hit the Pentagon. It’s an unusual crash site, insomuch as the plane is supposed to have hit with such force as to completely disintegrate, and then burn so fiercely that all of the wreckage was also incinerated, but managed to do so without damaging either the foundation of the Pentagon at the point of impact, or the immaculate lawn.

But the gov’t has been extremely unforthcoming with regard to existing evidence which could more-firmly establish that such a low-probability scenario actually occurred. Why is that? If the evidence shows what it is purported to show, then why is proving it a national secret?

Even if things took place exactly as they are said to have, I’m very interested to know about that last question. It suggests that even if we were told the truth, we may not have been told the whole truth. (And yes, I’m sympathetic to the argument that “we can’t handle the truth.” It’s been true of the American public in so many areas outside of mass-casualty events, why not with regard to that as well? But I’m not sure which public figure I’d trust to deliver that news to me. Maybe John McCain. Or Sarah Palin, she has anti-corruption crusader cred…)

Hey Skipper Saturday, 20 March 2010 at 12:39
Do FDX MD-11’s show more than 400 feet of “altimeter lag” in their ADC/EFIS systems on a moderate descent? According to you, they do.

Oh, for pete’s sake, stop putting words in my keyboard, I have never said, or suggested, any such thing.

In the last seconds of AA77s existence, it was 150 knots past Vmo, and experiencing transient g-spikes as one particular representative of the religion of peace was trying to homing in on the Pentagon. Further, if it was at the altitude all the physical evidence says it was, then the static ports were probably affected by the ground’s proximity.

This is why the FDR data for altitude is suspect: the altimetry system is way outside its design envelope. So, until there is flight test data to show what delta between indicated and true altitude was under those conditions — I guarantee you no one knows the answer to that question — then that is another fact you don’t get to use.

That is why I claim the FDR data, while good enough for a schematic depiction, is not good enough for forensic investigation, because to do so requires assuming facts that are not in evidence.

For some reason, you don’t seem too concerned with the many issues raised in this thread, and instead make excuses based on your incredulity (look it up).

What I am concerned with, or rather baffled by, is your eliding my examples of things asserted as determinative facts which cannot be used at all.

You harped on about an amateur flying an airplane to an accuracy of 25 feet. I note you have made an impossible assumption: that what he hit was within 25 feet of what he was aiming at.

Response: [crickets]

AVRRA posted a pull quote from Nila Notalotaclues above. Now, to a non-pilot, that all sounds very authoritative. But someone who flies, in detail, explained why these alleged facts are simply not available. You do not get to use them and remain within the realm of reason.

Response: [crickets]

Altimeter being well outside the design envelope.

Response: [crickets]

A fiendishly ingenious cabal capable of concocting and enacting such an elaborate conspiracy while simultaneously being unable to fake FDR data.

Response: [crickets]

By the way, the thread you linked to at JREF while claiming it was a “good discussion on the FDR/csv files”, was started in 2006 before most of the information became available. The person who started that thread (“Anti-Sophist”), hasn’t been seen since early 2007 …

I call shenanigans.

… and never had the “courage” to offer his real name …

Typed, without any apparent sense of irony, by someone going under the pseudonym of “The Facts”, who refused to just that when challenged here.

Put up or shut up.

Stop by the Pilots For 9/11 Truth forum if you wish to learn something about the facts of 9/11, the FDR and witnesses. you know, evidence that is being introduced into a court of law. Don’t forget to keep an eye on the list as it does get updated regularly.

That list has roughly 110 members. I’ll bet more professional pilots than that have committed suicide in the last 10 years.

P4T managed to raise $300 of a $3800 fund raising goal from 7 contributors in the first quarter of 2010.

Apparently scarcely anyone is willing to put their money where their mouths are.

David Cohen Saturday, 20 March 2010 at 16:27

AOG: There are no unreleased tapes, nor were there ever anything like 100 tapes of the “object” approaching the Pentagon. That number comes from a purposeful misunderstanding of a FOIA response by the FBI. Everything the truthers say, includng “and” and “the” is a lie.

You can’t play with these people. I’m not saying that they’re mentally ill because I disagree with them, or to belittle them, or to suggest that what they believe is beyond the weight of the credible evidence.

I say that they are mentally ill because they are delusional. Because they suffer from an organic defect of the mind. They believe things that can’t possibly be true and they believe them despite all of the evidence. This is just like arguing with someone who claims to have been kidnapped by aliens or to be subject to CIA mindrays. They should go see a psychiatrist and get help. Some could help themselves by smoking less dope, but most are the victims of their own illness.

Hey Skipper Saturday, 20 March 2010 at 17:49

David:

As it happens, I know one of the people on the 9/11 PFT list. I did a little googling.

Since I last saw him, he has become precisely as you say: mentally ill, due to an organic defect of the mind.

Quite sad.

P.S. No, I will not say who, how, or when.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Sunday, 21 March 2010 at 04:45

There are no unreleased tapes…

That is an untruth.

I suspect that it’s simply hyperbole and a surplus of antagonism which led you to state such, but if you actually believe it, then you too fall into the “delusional” camp - just on the other side of the debate.

And to clear up a minor point with regard to the tapes, in this thread nobody has claimed that there are “100 tapes of the “object” approaching the Pentagon,” merely that ~100 recordings were seized from various devices around the area, including those at the Pentagon. Review the thread. Some of those recordings may have useful images, but almost none have been made available for public review.

There are three possibilities regarding those recordings, which I’ve outlined twice above. That the gov’t refuses to allow the recordings to be reviewed CANNOT be spun into any positive support for those whose theory is that everything happened exactly as the gov’t says that it did.

David Cohen Sunday, 21 March 2010 at 08:56

I’m not arguing with you. I sincerely urge you to seek professional help.

Bret Sunday, 21 March 2010 at 13:10

Professional help? They look competent to me. So what if they have a topic, whether or not fantasy, which they are passionate about? As long as it doesn’t get too much in the way of the rest of their lives, what difference does it make?

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Sunday, 21 March 2010 at 13:37

I’m not arguing with you.

You simply decided to post a dozen times on a topic that supposedly not only holds no interest for you, but also appalls you in its delusional premise and generally degraded supporters?

And you feel compelled to post incorrect information, and defend those postings?

A mental-health practitioner would tell you that you actually care very, very much about this topic.

Harry Eagar Sunday, 21 March 2010 at 13:51

‘I say that they are mentally ill because they are delusional.’

My view also. Not barking mad, as some are inclined to say. Some of them are capable enough in other respects.

There is not much we can say about it that Reginald Scot did not already say in ‘The Discoverie of Witchcraft,’ written in 1584.

FreeSpeech Sunday, 21 March 2010 at 14:10

Jeff,

The factors which could effect the Pitot-Static system (and therefore altimeter readings) is Compressibility. The Pitot-Static system and Air Data Computer is rated to above .86 Mach. Perhaps you feel .70 - .72M is above Mcrit for the 757? You’ll be in good company as those who make excuse for the govt story also feel the altimeter issue is due to .70M above Mcrit for the 757. They refuse to put their names to such an absurd claim though. I don’t blame them.

The Pitot-Static system was operating normally. This can be crosschecked with groundspeed, wind direction and speed vs. airspeed, and of course the Radar Altimeter.

Jeff, you need to PROVE the altimeter was lagging more than 400 feet. All else is speculation.

Furthermore, the height of the Pentagon is 77 feet. The height of a 757 is 44 feet. Clearly they were aiming for the wall and not the roof. A wall section that was recently reinforced to withstand such a blast. This is a 33’ margin of error in which an alleged 172 Flunky completely and totally ‘threaded-the-needle’ at a reported speed of 110 knots over Vmo pulling 2 G’s. This pilot was reported to be the “best and most experienced pilot” of all the “hijackers” yet couldn’t control a 172 at 65 knots.

The WTC is 208’ wide. The 767 wingspan is 156’ wide. This is a 25’ margin for error in which not even their “best and most experienced” was able to allegedly “thread-the-needle” at more than 150 knots over Vmo pulling almost 3 G’s.

Again, for those interested in facts, please listen to American and United Capts who have actual flight time in N612UA (United 175), N591UA (United 93), N334AA (American 11), N644AA (American 77) here.

As for the claim that a P4T member has an “organic defect of the mind” as being proof that those who question 9/11 must be “mentally ill”, this is more baseless accusations without evidence and a poor attempt at character assassination due to an inability to debate the facts and data, from Jeff. It is cowardly and classless to make such an accusation in a desperate attempt to support your argument without naming names, especially when there are over 250+ pilots and aviation professionals, over 1000+ Architecst and Engineers, over 200+ Senior Military, over 400+ Professors and over 300+ Family members who question the official narrative of 9/11. The lists have only been complied in the last 3-4 years. The lists grow.

Hey Skipper Sunday, 21 March 2010 at 21:17

FreeSpeech:

The factors which could effect the Pitot-Static system (and therefore altimeter readings) is Compressibility.

Enlighten me. How does compressibility affect altimeter readings?

Clearly they were aiming for the wall and not the roof.

It is the very apex of silliness to pretend to know what the pilot was aiming at. If he was aiming at ground zero — go ahead, introduce evidence he wasn’t — then he missed by a couple hundred yards.

His aimpoint is impossible to know; that is not a fact you get to have.

… please listen to American and United Capts who have actual flight time in N612UA (United 175), N591UA (United 93), N334AA (American 11), N644AA (American 77) …

Flight time in a specific airframe is relevant how? That is nothing more than noise.

As for the claim that a P4T member has an “organic defect of the mind” as being proof that those who question 9/11 must be “mentally ill” …

Work on your reading skills, FreeSpeech. I didn’t say that; it is yet another fact you don’t get to have.

To anyone who is not paranoid and obsessive, this particular person is paranoid and obsessive. I will not name names, because it is pointless. And I am sure as heck not going to name names to someone who hides behind “FreeSpeech”.

… especially when there are over 250+ pilots and aviation professionals …

P4T: 110 members. Fund raising goal: $3800. Pledged: $300. Number pledging: 7

That is pathetic.

________________

AVRRA:

You posted a bunch of stuff from Nila Notalotaclues. Do you still buy it?

FreeToSpeak Monday, 22 March 2010 at 00:51
Enlighten me. How does compressibility affect altimeter readings?

Read and Learn. (Specifically page 3 in second link.)

Jeff, for someone who claims to have “a clue”, you sure need quite a bit of instruction on the topic.

It is the very apex of silliness to pretend to know what the pilot was aiming at. If he was aiming at ground zero — go ahead, introduce evidence he wasn’t — then he missed by a couple hundred yards.

Ground Zero in NYC? Or Ground Zero at the Pentagon? Your statement is a logical fallacy for either. Attempting to prove a negative is a logical fallacy. The correct statement would be, prove he was aiming at ground zero and missed!

So, you think there is a possibility Hani was aiming for ground zero and ended up in Washington DC, penetrating Washington Class Bravo, after the two WTC had already been struck, performing a sweeping 330 degree maneuver specifically to line up with the section of the Pentagon which had recently been reinforced to withstand such a blast? I suppose those who hit the WTC with a 25’ margin for error were aiming for the Pentagon or the roof of the WTC? Perhaps they were aiming for The Sphere sculpture in the Plaza? You don’t happen to sell waterfront property in AZ, do ya? Get any buyers?

Flight time in a specific airframe is relevant how? That is nothing more than noise.

Flight time in a relevant aircraft pertains to knowledge of the systems. You don’t even know Compressibility can effect the Static system on an aircraft if not calibrated, nor what the FDR records to be able to cross check parameters. I don’t expect you to understand having actual flight time in the actual aircraft as being relevant.

To anyone who is not paranoid and obsessive, this particular person is paranoid and obsessive. I will not name names, because it is pointless.

So you cherry pick and make a baseless claim that an alleged member of P4T relevant to accusations made (“If one questions 9/11, they must be mentally ill”) has an “organic defect of the mind” sans evidence, in a poor attempt to support your argument. You don’t think the lurkers here will see your extreme bias and desperation? Why not describe Jeff Latas? Also a member of P4T.

1982, commissioned United States Air Force. - 1983, Completed pilot training at Columbus Air Force Base, MS - 1983 assignment to F-111s at Cannon Air Force Base in Clovis, NM - 1986, Assignmented as an instructor in T-38, Laughlin Air Force Base, TX -Receive the Outstanding Instructor award -Served as an evaluator, Base Exercise Evaluation Team.

-1989, First 100 pilots to fly the F-15E “Strike Eagle.” -Assignment in the F-15E, 336th “Rocketeers” Fighter Squadron at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, NC -August 9, 1990, deployed to Oman in support of Operation Desert Shield -December 1990, redeployed to to Al Karj Air Base in Saudi Arabia -Awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for heroism. -Flew 38 official combat missions -Top Gun in the spring of 1993 -Returned to Saudi Arabia twice with the Rocketeers in support of Operation Southern Watch

-June 1994, Pentagon managing requirements for weapon modernization programs -Served as a member of the Quadrennial Defense Review in 1996

-June 1998, assignment to the 391st “Flying Tigers” fighter squadron at Mountain Home Air Force Base, ID -Returned to Southwest Asia, once in support of Operation Southern Watch, Kuwait, and in support of Operation Northern Watch, Turkey. -2000, Accident Investigation Board President.

-2001, transfered to12th Air Force at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.

Exemplary military record, 5000 hours in fighter aircraft, the Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals.

-December 2002, hired by JetBlue Airways -Upgraded to Captain in 2005.

- Vice Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party - Chair of the Arizona Democratic Veterans’ Caucus - Chair of the Sonora Progressives - Founding member of Veterans for a Secure America, (Fighting Dems) - Founding member of the Communities in Schools of Wayne County, - Served as president of the PTA at Shrevewood Elementary School Jeff Latas’s Specialties:

Aircraft Accident Investigation Aerospace Engineer Airline Captian Twenty Year Career USAF Officer Weapon Requirements and Development

US Congressional Candidate, AZ08, 2006 Vice Chair Arizona Democratic Party 2007-Pres Chair Arizona Democratic Veterans’ Caucus, 2007-Pres

Skipper, you were sinking fast, now you’re officially sunk.

As for funds raised at P4T, you haven’t the first clue. At least you’re consistent. The organization is growing and getting more exposure. I actually found my way here due to the hit referrals from this site thanks to AVRRA posting our links. Despite your empty rhetoric Jeff, P4T is getting quite a bit of traffic from this thread, the funds will increase with time. P4T and the Patriot Community are up against multi-billion dollar propaganda machines such as Fox News and CNN. But I’m sure you prefer Fox over facts. Too bad for you those news organizations are also sinking fast as more and more see through Mainstream Media lies.

P4T have listed members and unlisted members and more aviation professionals who haven’t joined yet (The Patriotsquestion911.com sire I linked to above is a great example. 400+ Medical Professionals just added today by the way). Reason being, people like you prefer character assassination as opposed to discussing the facts and data. When you do attempt to discuss the facts and data, you make excuses out of pure speculation, argue through pure incredulity, construct flimsy strawman’s, or haven’t the knowledge to discuss the topic (FDR and Compressibility being fine examples). Forgive me if I no longer find the time to respond to your rhetoric as it’s clear I’m having a battle of wits with an unarmed individual who lacks even the basics of aero knowledge.

For the rest who seek the facts without the rhetoric, click here.

David Cohen Monday, 22 March 2010 at 08:48

I never said I didn’t care about it. I care about it deeply. To the extent I’ve posted about what actually happened on 9/11, it was for those who haven’t spent time mucking about in trutherism and don’t know that truthers and their “data” are entirely unreliable. I’ve long since learned that truthers can’t be argued with.

Here’s what we know about 9/11:

19 hijackers took control of four commercial jetliners after they took off. The pilots may have been killed at the time of the hijacking or might not. Procedure at the time was to comply with hijackers demands, which theretofore had resulted in the plane being stormed after landing.

There was no time for any ground based response.

One plane flew into each of the twin towers, which eventually collapsed for that reason alone.

Damage to WTC 7 from the falling towers, along with fires started by the collapse, resulted in the collapse of WTC 7.

One of the planes flew into the Pentagon. It was seen to do so by numerous eye-witnesses. There was wreckage at the Pentagon, pictures of which are easily available on the web. The wall that was hit was the wall facing the flight path of AA 77, the easiest wall for the plane to hit. There are no unreleased videos of the Pentagon hit.

The final plane crashed in Pennsylvania. It would be nice to think that the passengers called the crash, but we don’t know that. It was not hit by a missile.

Those are the facts. I will not argue them with you, but any citizen who likes can easily determine the truth of what happened that day. To believe otherwise, and in particular to believe that this was the action of the US government (the theory known as MIHOP, for Made It Happen) is delusional.

Hey Skipper Monday, 22 March 2010 at 12:03

FTS:

Enlighten me. How does compressibility affect altimeter readings?
Read and Learn. (Specifically page 3 in second link.)

Read the third quoted para in your first link, or the fourth page of your second link. Now, tell me, in so many words:

— where altitude is sensed

— the specific term for the associated sensing error.

— For bonus points, tell me precisely how your second link, “Air data Measurement and Calibration” recommends taking compressibility into account with regard to altimeter calibration.

Hint: a complete answer to each question is two words (three for the third if you do not use a contraction.)

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Monday, 22 March 2010 at 12:21

You posted a bunch of stuff from Nila Notalotaclues. Do you still buy it?

That it was within the realms of physics for a 757 to make that strike, despite ground effects and vastly excessive speed, you’ve established. (Although there is still the problem of immaculate lawn/undamaged foundation - depending on the angle of attack, at least one of those two should have been damaged…)

That an untrained, unpracticed person could perform the maneuvers recorded and ascribed to him, I find implausible. However, Hani Hanjour may not have been entirely clueless; according to the NTSB, AA 77 was flown to D.C. via autopilot, suggesting that the hijackers were, in fact, somewhat familiar with Boeing 757 instrumentation and equipment. (Which raises the questions, how, where, when?) You’ve said that it’s easy, and I believe that it is, for a person with experience. But I’ve observed student drivers, and taught trainees how to operate heavy equipment, and even with an experienced person in the other seat, and the benefit of previous study in the theory, practice and nature of operation, they are still unsure, hesitant, definitely not smooth, and they make mistakes.

If it could be definitively shown that a 757 flew into the Pentagon, say using surveillance footage from security cameras from the surrounding area, and even better if the serial numbers from the wreckage would be released so that a definitive match to AA 77 could be made, (which is to say, matching more parts than just the flight-data recorder), then off-hand I can’t think of how it could be proven that Hani Hanjour wasn’t the pilot. (Although such means may exist, unknown to me.) I would therefore have to accept that a putatively inept, untrained and unpracticed novice got extremely-improbably lucky.

Here’s what we know about 9/11:…

Except that those things that you list aren’t all that we know about 9/11.

That’s a list of what we’ve been told happened. But in fact, even those who compiled that list don’t believe it:

Sep-11-2009 The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies by Gordon Duff | Salem-News.com

[All emph. add.] (CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version… is almost entirely untrue…

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities’ School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.

Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.

Farmer states…“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened… I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say… “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . ” When Bush’s own handpicked commission failed to go along with the cover up and requested a criminal investigation, why was nothing done?

9/11 Commission member and former US Senator, Bob Kerrey, says, “No one is more qualified to write the definitive book about the tragedy of 9/11 than John Farmer. Fortunately, he has done so. Even more fortunately the language is clear, alive and instructive for anyone who wants to make certain this never happens again.” […]

In 2006, The Washington Post reported…”Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission…”

Which makes Gov. Kean, Sen. Kerrey, law school Dean & NJ AG Farmer, and all of the unnamed 9/11 commission members who wanted a criminal investigation of the perjured testimony before their commission, it makes all of them delusional, by your standards.

We are a sorry society, indeed, if so many mentally-ill people could rise to such high positions of responsibility, power, and influence, and stay there.

Alternatively, the very authorities who provided the information whence you draw your “things we know” list are trying to tell you something that you refuse to acknowledge.

It was seen to do so by numerous eye-witnesses. There was wreckage at the Pentagon, pictures of which are easily available on the web. The wall that was hit was the wall facing the flight path of AA 77, the easiest wall for the plane to hit. There are no unreleased videos of the Pentagon hit.

Every single one of those sentences is either a half-truth, or completely untrue.

But I believe that YOU believe those things, which brings to mind Will Rogers: “It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so.”

Hey Skipper Monday, 22 March 2010 at 13:34

AVRRA:

(Although there is still the problem of immaculate lawn/undamaged foundation - depending on the angle of attack, at least one of those two should have been damaged…)

No, neither are true. At Vmo + 150, AOA at 1G would be zero, or even negative. But ignoring AOA, it just isn’t true that the lawn would have been damaged. The jet blast from the outboard engines of a B747 hits outside the edges of most runways during takeoff rotation. However, absent ruffling the grass and raising a bit of dust, there is no damage.

However, Hani Hanjour may not have been entirely clueless; according to the NTSB, AA 77 was flown to D.C. via autopilot, suggesting that the hijackers were, in fact, somewhat familiar with Boeing 757 instrumentation and equipment.

Something they could obtain through any number of flight simulator programs for the PC.

As well as practicing the whole thing.

Here is how simple it is:

Find the heading set knob on the glareshield control panel. Rotate it to the desired heading, and pull.

Find the vertical speed wheel and roll it to the desired rate.

Adjust both so that the Chesapeake, then Potomac, then the Washington Monument, does not move on the windscreen.

If it could be definitively shown that a 757 flew into the Pentagon …

Given the intensity of the impact and post-crash fire, what makes you think that anything bearing a serial number would be recognizable?

Once again: there is a conspiracy that can make a 757 and all its passengers vanish, yet didn’t think to fake a FDR, or leave serial numbers laying around?

After all, it isn’t like they would not have been aware of people who still insist TWA800 was also a conspiracy.

David Cohen Monday, 22 March 2010 at 14:11

Now you’re not even trying. Even you must know that the 9/11 commission rejects trutherism.

More Facts Monday, 22 March 2010 at 14:27

AVRRA,

Nila’s analysis is a bit outdated as his analysis was published prior to the FDR data being released.

For more current analysis, please see this video. It analyzes the physics required for the approach path to the Pentagon based on FDR data. The aircraft would have had to pull 10+ G’s at its lowest possible altitude and more than 34 G’s at the NTSB plotted altitude. Both are impossible for a 757. The analysis was done by Aeronautical Engineers, Aircraft Accident Investigators and Military/Civilian Pilots.

Ground effect isn’t so much of a factor at such high speeds. One notable factor which dooes come into play at such speeds over a manufactured set limit are Center Of Pressure moving too far aft of Center Of Gravity, so much so that the elevator is no longer effective. This is just one of the many reasons Boeing sets two types of airspeed limitations (Vmo/Mmo). To understand the difference between Vmo and Mmo, how and why Boeing sets these limits, please see this video.

For more in depth analysis of the witnesses, this video is excellent. It contains interviews on location in Arlington with numerous witnesses at the exact location they were standing on 9/11, describing what they saw. Pentagon Police Officers, Arlington National Cemetary Workers.. etc. They all independently corroborate each other in placing the aircraft on an approach opposite the physical damage observed at the Pentagon, making the physical damage once again impossible to have been caused by the approaching aircraft.

These are the facts, all else is speculation.

————————————————-

Skipper, you are contraditicting yourself… although you probably won’t be able to follow this… and I’m here posting information to AVRRA, I’ll address you as well.

… if you claim to understand what measures altitude and the reasons for calibration, and that you agree Compressbility wouldn’t be a factor, please tell us what caused the ADC to record an altitude too high to hit the Pentagon when you claim it was “operating outside it’s calibration range…” and prove it.

We arent’t talking about a Cherokee Altimeter here. We are discussing an aircraft with an ADC calibrated to remove position errors to above .86M routed through a DFDAU to a Crash Memory Unit (you lost yet?). Even a Delta 757/767 Avionics tech who adamantly supports and makes excuses for the govt story agrees Altimeter “lag” is not a factor in this instance. The Delta Avionics Tech and a supposed NASA Scientist at JPL (both staunch govt apologists) feel the descrepency is due to compressibility thereby implying the 757 may have an Mcrit number near .70 - .72M. Do you know what Mcrit means? The NASA Scientist feels the Mcrit can be as low as .60M for the 757. Do you agree?

Hey Skipper Monday, 22 March 2010 at 15:46

FreeSpeech/More Facts/et al:

You said:

The factors which could effect the Pitot-Static system (and therefore altimeter readings) is Compressibility.

——

Enlighten me. How does compressibility affect altimeter readings?

Read and Learn. (Specifically page 3 in second link.)

Jeff, for someone who claims to have “a clue”, you sure need quite a bit of instruction on the topic.

Read the third quoted para in your first link, or the third and fourth pages of your second link. Now, tell me, in so many words:

— where altitude is sensed

— the specific term for the associated sensing error.

— For bonus points, tell me precisely how your second link, “Air data Measurement and Calibration” recommends taking compressibility into account with regard to altimeter calibration.

Put up, or shut up. If your answer is longer than seven words, it is a fail.

TheRealSkipper Monday, 22 March 2010 at 18:46

Hey Skipper, you failed long ago when you claimed to have a clue regarding the FDR, yet didn’t know what was recorded. When you claimed the “altimeter” was operating out of it’s envelope yet don’t understand the factors involved nor the function/calibration of an ADC, and now completely fail to understand your questions have already been answered. The statement made that you wouldn’t be able to follow along was entirely accurate.

I personally think that you may have some aero knowledge, enough to get you into trouble, perhaps Jeff Guinn is your Uncle’s friend or something, but you are far from being a “Skipper”.

Anytime you want to let others know the factors which would cause an ADC to record a “lag” in Pressure altitude, please feel free to inform them. Then you need to explain why the Static system was operating normally and cross checks with other parameters. You been asked more than once.

Your altimeter “lag” excuse is bogus. It is an excuse a student pilot would use who blindly supports anything the govt tells them.

Hey Skipper Monday, 22 March 2010 at 19:19

Read the third quoted para in your first link, or the third and fourth pages of your second link. Now, tell me, in so many words:

— where altitude is sensed

— the specific term for the associated sensing error.

— For bonus points, tell me precisely how your second link, “Air data Measurement and Calibration” recommends taking compressibility into account with regard to altimeter calibration.

— For more bonus points, explain how altitude sensing systems are calibrated for flight outside the aircraft operating envelope.

— For more bonus points, quote where I said the altimeter was lagging.

Put up, or shut up. If your answer is longer than ten words(eight, using contractions), it is a fail.

TheRealSkipper Monday, 22 March 2010 at 19:47
quote where I said the altimeter was lagging.
- Hey Skipper Monday, 22 March 2010 at 19:19
The simple explanation is that the .csv values for altitude do not take into account calibration error or altimeter lag.
- Hey Skipper Saturday, 20 March 2010 at 00:42

So to sum up Skippers greatest moments.

“Actually, I have plenty of clues about FDRs…” - Hey Skipper

“To be quite candid, I am not absolutely certain what parameters an FDR records…” - Hey Skipper

“I tracked down the NTSB report. The .csv file contains only mag heading.” - Hey Skipper

“My mistake. The first graphic I saw in the NTSB report that had flight parameters showed only Mag Heading. Several pages later, there is one with both Mag and True…” - Hey Skipper

Skipper, it is clear why you do not understand your questions have already been answered and why you refuse to answer mine.

Epic Fail

Hey Skipper Monday, 22 March 2010 at 20:48

Read the third quoted para in your first link, or the third and fourth pages of your second link. Now, tell me, in so many words:

— where altitude is sensed

— the specific term for the associated sensing error.

— For bonus points, tell me precisely how your second link, “Air data Measurement and Calibration” recommends taking compressibility into account with regard to altimeter calibration.

— For more bonus points, explain how altitude sensing systems are calibrated for flight outside the aircraft operating envelope.

— For more bonus points, quote where I said the altimeter was lagging.

Put up, or shut up. If your answer is longer than ten words(eight, using contractions), it is a fail.

(OK, 1 point. NB: Unless altimeter lag is zero — which is physically impossible — then it is absolutely true that FDR’s do not take that into account.)

erp Monday, 22 March 2010 at 21:07

The Real Skipper? In your dreams.

The REAL Skipper Tuesday, 23 March 2010 at 00:34
Unless altimeter lag is zero — which is physically impossible — then it is absolutely true that FDR’s do not take that into account.

First he claims there is altimeter lag, then he wants to be quoted where he claimed “altimeter lag”, implying he never made such a claim, is shown his blatant contradiction, now he claims there is altimeter lag again?

Geeeze, how much crack do you smoke in one day Skippy?

Skippy, do you know what “cross-check” means? I’ll give you a little hint son. Look up change in Pressure Altitude vs Radar Altitude in the FDR Data. There is zero “altimeter lag”. There certainly isn’t 400 feet worth of “lag”, which is what you need to hold onto your theory.

Pneumatic lag and position error are removed from the Static System during placement of the Static Port, installation, and calibration, while the ADC is calibrated to .86M and beyond removing any additional position errors associated with Angle of Attack, side slip, configuration.. etc. Once again I am answering all your questions, I took the liberty to BOLD the keywords this time since you seem unable to comprehend words in a sentence. Any more instruction for you and I’ll have to start charging Skippy. :-)

Hey Skipper Tuesday, 23 March 2010 at 01:21

Read the third quoted para in your first link, or the third and fourth pages of your second link. Now, tell me, in so many words:

— where altitude is sensed

— the specific term for the associated sensing error.

— For bonus points, tell me precisely how your second link, “Air data Measurement and Calibration” recommends taking compressibility into account with regard to altimeter calibration.

— For more bonus points, explain how altitude sensing systems are calibrated for flight outside the aircraft operating envelope.

— For more bonus points, quote where I said the altimeter was lagging. (+1)

Put up, or shut up. If your answer is longer than ten words(eight, using contractions), it is a fail.

The Real Skipper Tuesday, 23 March 2010 at 02:07

“quote where I said the altimeter was lagging.” - Hey Skipper Monday, 22 March 2010 at 19:19

“The simple explanation is that the .csv values for altitude do not take into account calibration error or altimeter lag.” - Hey Skipper Saturday, 20 March 2010 at 00:42

“Actually, I have plenty of clues about FDRs…” - Hey Skipper

“To be quite candid, I am not absolutely certain what parameters an FDR records…” - Hey Skipper

“I tracked down the NTSB report. The .csv file contains only mag heading.” - Hey Skipper

“My mistake. The first graphic I saw in the NTSB report that had flight parameters showed only Mag Heading. Several pages later, there is one with both Mag and True…” - Hey Skipper

Skipper, it is clear why you do not understand your questions have already been answered and why you refuse to answer mine.

Epic Fail

Hey Skipper Tuesday, 23 March 2010 at 10:23

FreeSpeech/More Facts/et al:

You said:

The factors which could effect the Pitot-Static system (and therefore altimeter readings) is Compressibility.

——

Enlighten me. How does compressibility affect altimeter readings?
Read and Learn. (Specifically page 3 in second link.) Jeff, for someone who claims to have “a clue”, you sure need quite a bit of instruction on the topic.

Read the third quoted para in your first link, or the third and fourth pages of your second link. Now, tell me, in so many words:

— where altitude is sensed

— the specific term for the associated sensing error.

— For bonus points, tell me precisely how your second link, “Air data Measurement and Calibration” recommends taking compressibility into account with regard to altimeter calibration.

Put up, or shut up. If your answer is longer than seven words, it is a fail.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Tuesday, 23 March 2010 at 10:54

Even you must know that the 9/11 commission rejects trutherism.

They also explicitly reject their own report. So where does that leave us?

A rational person would conjecture that the truth lies somewhere between the extremes of “trutherism”, and the self-reportedly incomplete/false Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

To insist that that report must be both completely true, and the final word, when the actual Commission members themselves don’t support that position, is an act of faith, NOT an act of reason.

erp Tuesday, 23 March 2010 at 11:57

Not to get into specifics, will someone tell me what do those who reject the official report, think really happened. No sarcasm, no name calling please.

The REAL Skipper Tuesday, 23 March 2010 at 13:32
Even you must know that the 9/11 commission rejects trutherism.
They also explicitly reject their own report. So where does that leave us?

AVRRA, this is a typical tactic of those who blindly support whatever their govt tells them. “Trutherism”. Stereotyping is a textbook strawman/disinfo tactic. Painting with a broad brush. Those who never question anything the govt tells them automatically have to put a label on anyone who does. From the wacky Conspiracy theories of “No Planes hit the WTC” to the most benign questioning of the govt story, they are all put into a neat little category by those suffering from Cognitive Dissonance. A Classic example is the poster who claims, “Who cares about this stuff? I certainly don’t!”… or… “There is nothing to debate!”, yet that is exactly what they do day and night.

There is no such thing as “trutherism”. There wouldn’t be an America if Patriots didn’t question their govt and attempted to hold them accountable. That is why this list grows.

—————————————-

Skippy,

Stop spamming the board like child sounding like a broken record and read the paragraphs for yourself. Learn something, will ya? Here, I’ll quote the sentence you clearly missed.

“Compressibility and shock waves also disturb the air and affect the measurements. Compressibility effects become important above approximately Mach number 0.3.”

Further reading will make you understand (perhaps not) how placement of the Static port and ADC calibration removes such affects within the flight envelope (in the case of a 757, 0.86M and above). Once you hit Mcrit, all bets are off. This is why the Randi’s kids (the thread you linked) have abandoned their “Altimeter Lag” theory and now posit Mcrit for the 757 is near .70 - .72M.

You claimed the aircraft/static system was operating outside its envelope and implied Altimeter lag as being the cause for the high altitude readings in the data. You are wrong. If it were “operating outside its envelope” (above .86M), Compressibility would be the factor which could (note the italics this time Skippy) cause Altitude error. This is why it is cross-checked with other parameters. The Static system was operating normally based on the data. If you were an Instrument rated pilot or an ATP, you would understand cross-check. You admittedly don’t understand Radar Altitude vs Pressure Alt, Mcrit, the function of an ADC or cross-check. You haven’t a clue what Compressibility is nor what the FDR records. Give it a rest…

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Tuesday, 23 March 2010 at 14:55

If you were an Instrument rated pilot or an ATP…

Whatever one might think of his arguments, it should be noted that Hey Skipper is both of those.

Hey Skipper Tuesday, 23 March 2010 at 15:02

— Static port.

— Position error

— It doesn’t.

To complete your quoted passage:

Compressibility effects become important above approximately Mach number 0.3. As a result, the static pressure around an airplane varies considerably with location. Local flow angles also differ from the free-stream flow direction. In straight-and-level flight, the airflow rises to the wing leading edge and falls below the trailing edge, causing errors in flow direction measurements. To some extent these errors can be studied in wind tunnels, but wind-tunnel measurements cannot replace in-flight measurements.

Here is how altimeter systems are calibrated:

Three calibration types are generally used to determine position error: direct comparison, altimetry, and velocimetry. The direct-comparison calibration type involves measuring the true static pressure from a known source. The result is then compared with the static pressure of the airplane being calibrated. Direct comparisons are completed using the trailing cone and pacer methods described in later sections of this memorandum. The altimetry type adds one level of complexity by first determining the true pressure altitude. This altitude is then converted to static pressure. The tower-flyby and radar-tracking methods, also described in later sections of this memorandum, use altimetry. The velocimetry type uses the ground speed of the airplane and windspeed to determine true airspeed. If test maneuvers are conducted in opposite directions, wind errors can be minimized. Temperature errors affect this calibration type. After the pitot and static pressure system is calibrated, the flow angles and temperature may be calibrated.

Hmmm. No compressibility there.

Since static ports never sense the true ambient pressure, extensive flight testing is required at altitudes, airspeeds and configurations throughout the flight envelope.

The ADC, which is not specific to any particular airplane, is then programmed to correct sensed values using flight test results.

This means there absolutely no way of knowing what the position error is outside the flight envelope, which is stated in terms of both Mmo and Vmo. The further outside the envelope, the greater the unknowable error. At Vmo + 150, no one, not you, not P4T, nor NASA/FAA/NTSB/FBI has any idea what either the magnitude or the direction of that error is.

To repeat: the pitot static system was operating well beyond any flight test data, therefore, it is impossible to know what the difference was between FDR altitude and the true altitude.

Unless, of course, you can produce the flight test data for 400’ and Vmo + 150.

[crickets. Well, unfortunately, no. Instead, the kind of irrelevant obnoxiousness in which paranoid, delusional obsessives specialize.]

Additionally, as YOUR cite stated, the static port location is chosen to both minimize position error, as well as lag. Not zero out lag, but rather to minimize it.

Here is a quote from an instruction manual regarding partial panel flying:

The pilot must learn to interpret the rate of movement as an indicator of attitude. What we wish to achieve is slow movement caused by gentle changes. Any effort to react abruptly will result in over-control. The pitch change occurs immediately but the instruments have delayed reactions.

This is from stabilized constant descent angle approaches:

When a missed approach is commenced at MDA, the aircraft will dip below MDA as it transitions to a climb. Several factors affect the amount of altitude lost during the initiation of a missed approach from a descent. These factors include:

* Time required for a decision (reaction time)

* …

* Baro altimeter lag.

This is from an Air Force Flight Test Center document on calibration:

Determination of Altimeter Lag: On aircraft that are operationally used for weapons delivery, an evaluation should be conducted to determine the effect of altimeter lag during hiqh rates of descent for the pitot-static system.

The aircraft was well outside flight test data parameters in both vertical and horizontal speeds. This means, per my original point way above, that raw FDR altitude data is not a fact you get to use as if it is true altitude. It is not.

It is funny: truthers share the same mindset as the hijackers themselves. Obsessive focus on faux-facts, and the complete exclusion of everything contradicting their blinkered, delusional, worldview.

Thanks, CourageAndFactFree, for a truly repellant internet experience.

The Real Skipper Tuesday, 23 March 2010 at 15:25

Well, well, well, Skippy did a bit of research. Very good Skippy for repeating essentially what I already tried to explain to you. Now listen closely as it’s already been repeated for you more than 3 times.

At Vmo + 150, no one, not you, not P4T, nor NASA/FAA/NTSB/FBI has any idea what either the magnitude or the direction of that error is.

You do if you cross-check with other parameters. (bolded this time as Skippy seems to not understand what cross-checking means)

Can you say Radar Altimeter yet? Say it slowly out loud with me… RAAAA DAAA RRRR… ALLLLLTIIIIIMEEEETEEERRR. Very good Skippy. Do you know what Radar Altimeter does? Do you know how it’s measured? Do you know the “errors”? How it’s sensed? Might want to look it up there Skippy.

Again Skippy, anytime you want to let us know what cause an altimeter to read too high to hit the Pentagon, please provide it. Your speculation is just that, speculation based on your incredulity and blindly following whatever the govt tells you. Since you haven’t been paying attention, let me be more clear. We both agree compressibility was not a factor. Thank you for doing your homework. I already know for a fact the Static system was operating normally. Guess how I and everyone else including your linked Randi’s kids to know that.… Thats right Skippy… Cross-Check.

Now go learn what the FDR records and how to cross-check Skippy.

The Real Skipper Tuesday, 23 March 2010 at 15:47
If you were an Instrument rated pilot or an ATP… Whatever one might think of his arguments, it should be noted that Hey Skipper is both of those.

Well, if one is an ATP, you’re technically no longer an “Instrument Rated” pilot as the ATP essentially combines the two. Meh, semantics.

With that said, I beg to differ. I posted exactly his answers more than once, bolded them, and what does Skippy do? Repeats himself like a broken record then finally posts exactly the words I bolded for him. Not to mention making threats at first encounter like a kid in high school (“knock your teeth out”).

I’ve never run across such a person who calls himself a “Professional Pilot”.

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 23 March 2010 at 18:17

I’m with erp. If what we saw on TV didn’t happen, what did?

Bret Tuesday, 23 March 2010 at 18:44

Hey Skipper wrote: “I know I am going to hate myself in the morning for doing this.

I’m imagining that you might be regretting your decision to debate this topic right about now. :-)

erp Tuesday, 23 March 2010 at 19:03

I thought truthers believed that Bush knew about the attacks, but didn’t take preventative action so he could a. take over the world, b. kill all the Moslems, c. shred the Constitution, d. all of the above as well as whatever else those suffering from BDS could conjure up.

This is apparently not the case with those claiming to be truthers on this string. They believe the CIA/FBI are lying when they say one of the planes hit the Pentagon. However, lots of people say they saw it do just that, so if it didn’t happen, what did? If the plane didn’t vaporize, where is it? Bodies, ditto?

Is this a new Roswell?

Hey Skipper Wednesday, 24 March 2010 at 01:18

Bret:

You got it, I feel as soiled as if I have been standing in a septic tank.

Oh well, if I ever want to demonstrate to someone that truthers are barking, I’ll just link to this.

erp:

You forgot. It’s all about the oooiiiilll.

David Cohen Friday, 26 March 2010 at 21:35

Don’t worry about it, Skipper. Nothing you wrote or didn’t write would have made any difference at all.

Again, the 9/11 commission believes that the 9/11 attacks were an al Qaeda operation, that 19 AQ operatives hijacked 4 flights, and that those four flights crashed into the twin towers, Pennsylvania and the Pentagon. They rejected both LIHOP (that the government let it happen) and MIHOP (that the government made it happen). Members of the commission are routinely confronted by truthers and always stand by their report.

Hundreds of eyewitnesses agree that the plane they saw hit the Pentagon, even if they got details wrong.

As it happens the government lies all the time. For example, it’s currently lying about what HCR will cost. That the government sometimes lies does not mean that the government is always lying.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Saturday, 27 March 2010 at 11:05

Members of the commission are routinely confronted by truthers and always stand by their report.

Wrong.

Simply wrong, and disturbingly so, insomuch as it’s very easily verified. This is a perfect example of how delusion and faith-based reality-blindness exists on all sides of the debate.

That the government sometimes lies does not mean that the government is always lying.

True enough, but in this case many 9/11 Commission members explicitly, bluntly and emphatically assert that the gov’t is lying.

As do many, many other extremely-senior people with impeccable credentials and experience in gov’t, intelligence, the military, law-enforcement, and aviation. (Dozens of detailed cites at the duplicate links above.)

Further, as an exercise in logic, should we believe that the Feds are willing to lie about such moderately-important things as the projected cost of HCR, the true level of unemployment, the true rate of inflation, etc., etc., but that they would not lie about 9/11?????

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 27 March 2010 at 14:12

Here’s another strike against the “9/11 Truthers” — they are willing to consider that the government lies to cover up some massive conspiracy, but not to conceal their own fecklessness. Note that this is key to distinguishing the cases in your last sentence.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Saturday, 27 March 2010 at 16:29

It is extremely unlikely that there was a gov’t-wide conspiracy. Therefore, most of those who testified falsely did so for CYA-related reasons.

But that doesn’t mean that there was only one reason to lie to Congress. I don’t think that the “key” unlocks enough.

David Cohen Saturday, 27 March 2010 at 20:54

All of the 9/11 commission members reject both LIHOP and MIHOP. All of them accept what truthers call “the official version” and everyone else calls “what happened on 9/11.”

If it’s so easy to prove otherwise, do so.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Sunday, 28 March 2010 at 13:12

IOW, the acknowledged presence of incompetence tells us nothing about whether there was also malevolence.

Mr. Cohen:

Follow the links in my post of 27 Mar 11:05, read the cites, follow those links. I can’t tell you, as you won’t accept it from me, “a delusional truther, diseased of brain or possibly just toking too much.”

What I can do, and have done repeatedly, is to tell you that the statement in your last post and others like it up-thread ARE ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE, and if you’d like to know why, I’ve provided you with linked references.

There are few things on Earth that are easier than falsifying your assertion. The person who literally wrote the report that you cling to so fiercely later wrote an entire book explaining how much of what they were told was misleading, false, or perjurious.

Again: Follow the link, read the cites, become enlightened.

David Cohen Sunday, 28 March 2010 at 13:23

Sorry, but none of your links say anything even remotely resembling what you claim.

This should be simple. Find any statement from any commissioner suggesting that anything happened on 9/11 other than what we know to be true. That the twin towers collapsed because of explosives rather than planes, that something other than AA 77 hit the Pentagon, or that the government knew what was going to happen but purposely refrained from trying to stop it. And I don’t mean to be limiting. Find a single statement by a commissioner stating that anything at all happened that day other than the “official story” and post it.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Sunday, 28 March 2010 at 15:42

Sorry, but none of your links say anything even remotely resembling what you claim.

My claim, oft repeated, is that you are incorrect when you assert that the 9/11 Commissioners stand by their official product.

The links in my post of 27 Mar 11:05 lead directly to citations and links of 9/11 Commissioners explicitly repudiating the report.

Therefore, I am completely puzzled by your continued insistence that they haven’t done so.

Given the situation, it’s also vastly amusing that you write of the “truthers” as being delusional, drugged, or mentally diseased. Irony abounds.

David Cohen Sunday, 28 March 2010 at 16:33

None of the statements you cite (none of which are direct) come close to a repudiation of the report. Most are simply the inevitable and plainly true concession that they didn’t get the whole story or that some people lied to them. Since it’s trivial to find commissioners repudiating trutherism (here’s Lee Hamilton doing it on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZYIDn7JiYk), show me where any of them repudiated the report. Where do they suggest that anything other than the obvious happened on 9/11?

Hey Skipper Monday, 29 March 2010 at 12:06
IOW, the acknowledged presence of incompetence tells us nothing about whether there was also malevolence.

That statement is wrong both ways.

Most trivially, it is clear there was malevolence. It is also clear to anyone who is not a monomaniacal paranoid where that malevolence resided, and what it led to: four airliners hijacked by fanatical Islamists.

Less obvious is the fact that humans are not omniscient, and when faced with a tragedy of this magnitude, will go into denial about how their personal lack of omniscience contributed to the outcome.

To wit: the Common Strategy. Does anyone wish to step up and admit deciding against intrusion resistant cockpit doors, despite PSA 1771? Anyone else care to admit that the Common Strategy was tantamount to negotiating with terrorists, and nearly always led to outcomes that benefited hijackers?

No, of course not.

Obviously, official reports are less than candid, for a host of reasons that are too obvious to need re-listing. The real casualty, occasionally, is the future. If the report validates denial, then institutions won’t change to prevent recurrences.

Once upon a previous life, I was involved with an aircraft mishap. The actual chain of occurrences leading to the crash extended back at least a decade: changing equipment usage in a way that was substantially different than its acquisition parameters, and then later failing to compensate for that change. The accident investigation board, chaired by a lackwit, blamed the pilots: the report completely whitewashed supervisory error.

What makes that relevant here is that the quality of the report, or lack thereof, did not change the actual fact of what happened.

That the report 9/11 Commission report is incomplete and inaccurate can be said quite comfortably next to the assertion that 19 Islamist whackjobs hijacked and crashed four airliners.

Insisting otherwise is delusional, and gets no closer to the exercise of reason then stating If not A then B.


Just in time, there is Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History. (H/T)

The problem with these delusional monomaniacal paranoids is that they often lead to great evil: Mbeki, Ahmadinnerjacket, the 19 hijackers, and everyone who doesn’t treat the very mention of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion with a derisive snort are all from the same stripe as Rob Balsamo.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Monday, 29 March 2010 at 15:40

That the report 9/11 Commission report is incomplete and inaccurate can be said quite comfortably next to the assertion that 19 Islamist whackjobs hijacked and crashed four airliners.

Well, sure. But also, because the 9/11 Commission report is incomplete and inaccurate, we cannot say definitively that 19 Islamist whackjobs hijacked and crashed four airliners. Insisting that it must be so, is likewise delusional.

We are in agreement that the real casualty is the future. Why on Earth does the Federal gov’t, including both the Bush and Obama admins, and Congresses under both GOP and Dem control, not care to find and reveal the bottom-line truth?

The answer to that question is far more important than any about what the actual circumstances were that led to the observed destruction.

Mr. Cohen:

I am content to let you have the last word on that. Interested readers can follow the links, yours and mine, and decide who is more accurately portraying the current positions of the 9/11 Commission members.

I will note that even you are willing to concede that the agencies testifying before the Commission lied. So to believe, as you do, that the testimony was admittedly false, but nevertheless must be kinda, sorta close to the truth, so that the Commission’s final report is somehow an unassailable description of what actually happened…

Well, there’s no rationality to that. It’s simply faith. Without further supporting evidence and verification, the Commission’s report can be considered the final word only by those with an emotional or psychological NEED to believe.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Monday, 29 March 2010 at 15:48

Ahmadinejad may or may not be crazy, but that’s a separate issue from the very rational reasons for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.

They’re just not ones that will make the West very happy.

erp Monday, 29 March 2010 at 15:55

Rough, why does Iran need nuclear weapons?

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 29 March 2010 at 16:10

But also, because the 9/11 Commission report is incomplete and inaccurate, we cannot say definitively that 19 Islamist whackjobs hijacked and crashed four airliners. Insisting that it must be so, is likewise delusional.

I don’t see how that follows at all. It seems to presume that the 9/11 Commission report is the only evidence for the standard scenario. But it’s not, there’s plenty of other evidence, more than enough to enable one to make a definite statement. If Congress did a study on the Earth orbits Sol, and most of the witnesses lied, would you then claim that we could no longer definitely claim the Earth orbits Sol?

Mr. Cohen, I believe, is coming at it from that angle. There is plenty of evidence of what happened, the 9/11 Commission report, in the main, is consistent with that, therefore it’s kinda sorta close to the truth. Can you not imagine coming to a conclusion about event without a Congressional Commission issuing a report?

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Monday, 29 March 2010 at 16:22

They don’t need ‘em, they just want ‘em.

Remember, Iran doesn’t really have any friends or allies, just provisional partners with common goals. They’re Muslim, but Shi’ites. They aren’t Arabs, they’re Persians. Those religious and ethnic divisions put them on the outside. And they have fond memories of the past, when Persia was an important power.

If they possessed nuclear weapons, it would make them less vulnerable to attack, and more influential in the region and in the world. They’d like to be more powerful than Saudi Arabia & allies.

Gulf oil will be largely exhausted by the middle of this century. Having nukes could allow Iran to position itself, on its own terms, for a prosperous future.

But, having said that, what’s most likely is that, even if they get some nuclear weapons, they’ll flub it and end up a poor backwater. And there is some possibility that they’ll end up isolated and humiliated in their quest for nukes, should Israel/America decide to pay the price to stop ‘em.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Monday, 29 March 2010 at 16:42

AOG:

Astronomical skeptics can freely perform their own studies. The evidence from the attacks is not available for study, in fact they got rid of some of it, and we know that they lied about both the evidence and the sequence of events.

How can we know how far from the truth was their testimony? We can’t.

There is plenty of evidence that the Pentagon suffered damage, that several buildings in NYC are no longer there, and that four planes and their passengers are missing.

As to how that happened, there are many, many serious, credible people who are unwilling to endorse the Congressional report. To claim that it’s cut-n-dried is to ignore the shallowness of the publicly-available evidence. Remember, a significant minority of the 9/11 Commission wanted the Justice Dept. to bring down the hammer on those who were testifying before the Commission. This is the quality of evidence by which you assert that the report must be “kinda, sorta definitive”?

But if you’re calling for all evidence to be made available for public scrutiny, and for authorities to testify as to the reasons for disposing of such evidence as they’ve had destroyed, then by all means, let’s.

erp Monday, 29 March 2010 at 17:55

Rough, didn’t you say, “… the very rational reasons for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons. They’re just not ones that will make the West very happy.”

Do you believe that very rational reasons = “they want ‘em.”

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 29 March 2010 at 19:35

erp;

I have to agree with AVRAA about Iran, or more accurately about the theocratic regime in Iran. Given their ideology and geopolitical situation, nuclear weapons are clearly of benefit. What the theocracy wants is to be the dominant regional power. Hence the funding of various Caliphascist groups. Nuclear weapons are part of the same strategy, both to intimidate neighbors, achieve some level of military parity with Israel, and discourage foreign military intervention against the regime. I would say all of that falls under AVRAA’s original description.

AVRAA;

The evidence from the attacks is not available for study

That’s simply not true. There are, for instance, a number of home videos and photographs of the attack. There are many eye witnesses none of whom have, as far as I know, been disappeared. There are forensic analyses available, which can be checked for internal and external consistency. There is plenty of other evidence. That doesn’t mean none has been concealed or erased, but it’s hardly the case that all or, IMHO, even most of it has been.

erp Monday, 29 March 2010 at 21:46

aog, I know why Iran wants nukes. My point is that wanting to be king of the hill isn’t a rational reason. It’s a very dangerous emotional one.

Bret Monday, 29 March 2010 at 22:25

Well, I rather was hoping that the U.S. would remain king of the hill. However, Obama apparently agrees with you, erp, that being king of the hill is a dangerous and emotion quixotic quest for us and is doing everything he can to make sure we are no longer king of the hill. I’ll have to disagree with you and Obama on this one.

Hey Skipper Monday, 29 March 2010 at 22:52
Well, sure. But also, because the 9/11 Commission report is incomplete and inaccurate, we cannot say definitively that 19 Islamist whackjobs hijacked and crashed four airliners. Insisting that it must be so, is likewise delusional.

Nonsense.

The precipitating event is not in question, except by people for whom no conceivable amount of evidence would be sufficient. (To wit, and to repeat: out of roughly 160,000 professional pilots, 110 — or fewer — belong to P4T: 6.88^-4 percent.)

The only value to be had out of the 9/11 Commission was in understanding how 19 Islamists were able to perpetrate such a disaster, in order that it not happen again. To the extent the report was meaningfully incomplete and inaccurate, it is in that regard only. Spending time and money parsing FDR data in order to correlate it against actual aircraft performance would be a comprehensive waste of time in two respects: for those to whom the blindingly obvious is sufficient, nothing further is required.

For the other 110, their mental illness renders the exercise futile.

Gulf oil will be largely exhausted by the middle of this century. Having nukes could allow Iran to position itself, on its own terms, for a prosperous future.

That is a perfect non-sequitor.

Having nukes allowed Russia to position itself for a prosperous future, right?

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Tuesday, 30 March 2010 at 02:44

AOG:

I started off speaking of the Pentagon strike. Are the recordings from the surrounding area, seized by the gov’t, available for study? Is the recovered wreckage available for study? Will they release the actual FDR, and not just attributed info?

Until that’s true, assertions that independent study of the incident is possible, are specious. (Although it’s interesting that you’d recommend “checking the available forensic analyses for internal and external consistency”, as that’s EXACTLY what’s been done, and of course anomalies were discovered, which I and others in this thread have posted about and linked to; the anti-truthers in the discussion gave that angle a chilly reception.)

erp:

So what rational reasons do the U.S. have for keeping their nukes, now that the USSR is no more?

If you’re about to answer that America has enemies, then that applies to Iran just as easily - and one of their enemies is us, the U.S. They live in a very rough neighborhood, where nobody likes them, and three of their neighbors have nukes. (Israel, Pakistan, Russia.)

Otherwise, as Bret remarks, America wants to be King of the Hill, but that’s both dangerous and an emotional decision, not a rational one. In fact, Gen. Washington famously warned future generations to “avoid foreign entanglements.” Many of the Founders were what we’d now call “isolationists”, and would be aghast at our current geopolitical situation. (Not Jefferson, though; he was a “Manifest Destiny” expansionist, wanting, for instance, to invade & conquer Canada. His vision won out, in the end.)

Bret:

Take heart, the U.S. are failing fast, but relative to the rest of the world, we’ll still be no. 1, as everywhere else is in for very rough times as well. Australia, Brazil and Canada might move up as bigger rivals in terms of standard of living, though. America will simply be Lesser King of a Smaller Hill. (Crown Prince of the Mound?)

Europe, Japan, Russia: Demographic issues.

China: Demographic + economic + existential political issues.

Skipper:

You assert that the events of 9/11 are not questionable, then do some hand-waving. Sounds like AGW to me: “The science is settled. The discussion is over.” That’s not applied logic, and it durn sure ain’t science. It’s faith.

Again - we know they lied. How can we be sure about what they lied, and how far it was from the truth? We can’t.

As I wrote above, what we can objectively know is that planes, people, and buildings are missing. The rest is subject to interpretation, since our gov’t doesn’t care to pin it down.

As for Iran, the key word in my quoted sentence is “could”. Regarding Russia, yes, they did, insomuch as without ‘em, they would’ve had their rumps kicked a long time ago, by us or possibly by China.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Tuesday, 30 March 2010 at 02:51

And to be perfectly candid, nobody is as shocked as am I at finding myself standing in even the same quadrant as 9/11 Truthers; until recently I had roughly the same opinion as Mr. Cohen and Skipper appear to have: “Put down the bong, dude. And quit dropping acid.” And I still think that’s true of most of ‘em.

Life’s a funny old thing, to coin a phrase.

erp Tuesday, 30 March 2010 at 07:30

Bret, even though our president and the president of Iran are both despicable jerks going against the will of their people, doesn’t mean our motives for maintaining a nuclear arsenal are the same.

As usual, the immortal bard says it best, “Be not afraid of greatness; some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them.” William Shakespeare. We’ve had greatest thrust upon us and if I were a chauvinist, I might call it Pax Americana.

BTW- King of the Hill is, to me, a pejorative term and I don’t think that’s what we are or set out to be. We have nukes for the same reason we have a very effective at-the-ready military, rolling stock, cool weapons … to make sure everyone on the planet understands that we stand ready to retaliate in a really nasty way should anyone attempt using nukes and apparently, it’s worked.

Iran/Persia may achieve greatness again in the future, but it won’t be because they have “The Bomb.”

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 30 March 2010 at 08:05

Skipper;

Having nukes allowed Russia to position itself for a prosperous future, right?

It allowed the leadership to have a prosperous future.

AVRRA;

I started off speaking of the Pentagon strike. Are the recordings from the surrounding area, seized by the gov’t, available for study? Is the recovered wreckage available for study? Will they release the actual FDR, and not just attributed info?

Until that’s true, assertions that independent study of the incident is possible, are specious.

I simply don’t agree. I think that would be good information to release, but it’s hardly the only evidence and, IMHO, isn’t necessary to come to a firm conclusion about the general events. You seem to think it’s critical to know whether the plane came in at 400 ft or 50 ft, but really kind of thing is just a detail. It’s like arguing about which how and which particular round blew up the Hood. That can be disputed, but that the Hood was sunk by the Bismark doesn’t depend on those details. Or would you claim that since the Hood’s wreckage hasn’t been raised for a forensic analysis, we can’t say anything definite about that event?

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 30 March 2010 at 12:56

I don’t think the motivation for Stalin to have nukes was a prosperous future. It was just future, period.

Even paranoids have real enemies sometimes, and he sure did.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Tuesday, 30 March 2010 at 15:52

I think that would be good information to release, but it’s hardly the only evidence and, IMHO, isn’t necessary to come to a firm conclusion about the general events. You seem to think it’s critical to know whether the plane came in at 400 ft or 50 ft, but really kind of thing is just a detail.

It’s the only information that can be definitive. And what I’d examine the tapes for is not so much the flight path, although that’s critical info, but to ascertain if it’s reasonable to conclude that what’s shown flying is, in fact, a Boeing 700 series.

Imagine for a moment that this is some other issue, greatly disputed but not as emotionally-charged. OK? Dispassionate and, for the sake of argument, without preconceptions.

Both sides of the disagreement accept that an earlier investigation was marred by misinformation, false testimony, and a too-tight deadline, which didn’t allow for as much examination as the investigators wanted.

But one side says that we should trust the conclusions anyhow, that although there was misinformation, perjury and missing information, somehow we can know that what wasn’t revealed isn’t important. And, in any case, it’s not necessary to re-examine any evidence which would provide a definitive conclusion, that examining peripheral, secondary and inconclusive evidence is just as good - oh, and by the way, in the cases where that’s ALREADY BEEN DONE, and oddities found, that still doesn’t mean that it’s necessary to examine the main, definitive evidence.

If this were ANY OTHER ISSUE, would that approach be acceptable, would it make any sense? Any whatsoever?

It’s not like we’re talking about finding a ship at the bottom of the ocean, and raising it - we’re talking about the gov’t reaching into the evidence locker and allowing independent researchers to examine the stuff. It happens every day with other criminal cases.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 30 March 2010 at 16:48

AVRRA;

I reject your analogy.

Both sides of the disagreement accept that an earlier investigation was marred by misinformation, false testimony, and a too-tight deadline, which didn’t allow for as much examination as the investigators wanted.

But one side says that we should trust the conclusions anyhow

What conclusion? One side says “the overall evidence is clear, even if an investigation was lousy”.

Your error here is consistently presuming, implicitly or explicitly, that we are arguing our case on the basis of the 9/11 Commission investigation. On the contrary, if the Commission and its report evaporated from the pages of history tomorrow, it wouldn’t make any difference because we don’t see the evidence outside of the Commission as “secondary, peripheral, and inconclusive”.

If you want to know how we see you, imagine someone arguing against evolutionary theory because of the Piltdown Man hoax, and when other evidence is pointed out, keeps going back to how the hoax was perpetrated. Especially when the person can’t come up with any even remotely plausible alternative theory, only “questions” about the hoax. Would you take such a person seriously?

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Tuesday, 30 March 2010 at 19:29

If there were people arguing that evolutionary theory must be true because the Piltdown Man was a hoax, only we have to take their word for it because they won’t let anyone examine the Piltdown Man, and by the way, they admit that they lied about how the Man was discovered, who discovered it, and where it was discovered…

Not only would I not take them seriously, I’d assume that the truth must be the OPPOSITE of whatever they claim, because why else would they refuse to allow independent investigation?

Again, I’m absolutely gobsmacked that you’d think that it was a reasonable argument to say that the main pieces of evidence ought not be reexamined, that only those things that the gov’t didn’t think worthy of seizing should be looked at.

And AGAIN, that’s already been done, and if we are to proceed solely on the basis of that evidence which you claim is not secondary, peripheral or inconclusive, then the official story DOESN’T HOLD UP.

You are assuming a conclusion, and then shaping the argument to fit.

And as far as the 9/11 report goes, it may not be informing you, but Mr. Cohen is quoting from it - although he may not realize it. I dunno.

But the bottom line is, even you are willing to concede that the official investigation was “lousy”. So what, therefore, would be your reasoning for opposing another investigation? Since the Truthers are not serious people, then wouldn’t a reinvestigation merely confirm the conclusions of the first investigation, thereby reaffirming the worldview of the antitruthers?

There should be nothing to fear, yes? After all, “the evidence is clear”, right?

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 30 March 2010 at 19:47

Again, I’m absolutely gobsmacked that you’d think that it was a reasonable argument to say that the main pieces of evidence ought not be reexamined, that only those things that the gov’t didn’t think worthy of seizing should be looked at.

Again, you’re just not reading what I am writing. I made no statement anything like those. Correct me if I have your argument wrong —the 9/11 Commission report has a large number of errors, of both omission and commission, therefore the “standard model” of the 9/11 attacks is debatable.

if we are to proceed solely on the basis of that evidence which you claim is not secondary, peripheral or inconclusive, then the official story DOESN’T HOLD UP

We simply disagree on that. I think it holds up quite well. More significantly, I think it holds up enormously better than any alternative theory. You have yet to provide even a hint of any such alternative. If you want to be scientific, you might note that the standard process is to propose a hypothesis, then examine it against the data. We’re still waiting for you to take that first step.

You are assuming a conclusion, and then shaping the argument to fit.

No, I have examined the evidence and come to a conclusion. I simply do not care what the 9/11 Commission did or said. Let me repeat that in large letters: DO NOT CARE. If you think that’s a bizarre attitude, please explain why I should care, given (according to you) that it’s a massive failure.

So what, therefore, would be your reasoning for opposing another investigation?

I don’t have any, as I don’t oppose another investigation. Historical events are re-examined all the time. Go right ahead on this one. But if you support a government investigation, you might try pointing out why you think it would turn out a higher quality product than the last one.

David Cohen Tuesday, 30 March 2010 at 20:08

The 9/11 investigation wasn’t about the 19 hijackers or the four planes, it was about why the government couldn’t stop it and how it responded. Before and after the commission, there was no question about what happened that day. All of the 9/11 commissioners believe that that’s what happened, which you concede by failing to point to a single commissioner saying or suggesting otherwise.

Plus, you can’t split up the events of 9/11. There’s no way that hijackers took over three planes and crashed them the same day that the government independently faked a plane being hijacked and hitting the pentagon.

Finally, there are no secret tapes, the government has released the few tapes that existed, all of the witnesses — while varying to a degree in the flight path — agree that a plane hit the Pentagon exactly where the damage was seen. There are plenty of photos on the net of both the evidence and large chunks of plane — primarily engines and landing wheel assemblies — at the Pentagon. Finally, the FDR information matches ground radar returns and confirms that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon without first landing anywhere else.

To believe otherwise is delusional.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Wednesday, 31 March 2010 at 00:34

AOG:

You may wish to note that a falsifiable hypothesis already exists, the one that you’ve put forward. I’m just suggesting that we test it. If that hypothesis fails, then we can come up with an alternative one, that more closely fits what is found.

Duplicability and peer review are also part of the scientific process, and actions that the gov’t is resisting. There’s no reason for resistance which would tend to support the standard model - rather the opposite.

No, I’m not suggesting that we have another gov’t investigation. What I want is for them to allow outside experts to examine the evidence that they hold, which could be conducted in their facilities, should they be reluctant for any reason to transfer it.

Mr. Cohen:

Yes, you’ve made your faith-based assertions quite clear. That they don’t match with the known facts doesn’t appear to faze you in the slightest. Calling Truthers delusional may, indeed, be the case in many instances, but it’s also the pot meeting the kettle.

But as a procedural note, I don’t think that we can split up the events of 9/11. It just seems like wisdom to start with the event that left the greatest amount of evidence - resolving that one will shed a great deal of light on the other incidents.

I’ve embedded many links in this thread which could eventually lead you to those things that you demand to know. I can’t spoon-feed you. You would not accept it from me, which you’ve demonstrated repeatedly.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 31 March 2010 at 08:08

AVRRA;

We think it’s already been sufficiently tested to take as accurate. Therefore, for me to re-examine the subject would require an alternative hypothesis that was at least plausible. I also think that, as noted earlier, covering up their own malfeasance and fecklessness suffices to explain government resistance. In fact, history shows that the government frequently covers up information simply because it can. Again, you would have to suggest an alternative for what is being covered up in order for me to reconsider, especially given that many facts are in the public domain and not under government control.

Hey Skipper Wednesday, 31 March 2010 at 11:29

AVRRA:

You assert that the events of 9/11 are not questionable, then do some hand-waving.

You can’t possibly have read what I have written here and write that.

Truthers do not get to have facts simply because they want them. They do not get to say the airplane was too hard to fly, they do not get to say that where it was aimed and where it hit are the same, they do not get to say what the actual aircraft altitude was, they don’t get to make fallacious claims about the Common Strategy.

To put it more succinctly, truthers do not get to don the mantle of reason while abandoning it at every inconvenient turn.

So, after discarding the facts that are not, what is left of the truthers’ assertion that something other than AA77 hit the Pentagon?

Nothing.

Re-opening an investigation would be completely pointless, just as it would be for TWA800, the moon landings, or the Holocaust. Everyone who is not delusional and paranoid accepts those things happened. For the remaining few, their minds are unchangeable, because they wallow in an alternate reality.

Sure, the government could hand over the FDR to — well, whom, exactly? Let’s say that august group, P4T. (who, BTW, are so incompetent, they can’t even do basic math correctly)

Where the FDR is consistent with reality for the rest of us, the truthers will claim the FDR was falsified, and where it isn’t they will claim it as ground truth while ignoring every possible confounding error.

Mr. Cohen: Yes, you’ve made your faith-based assertions quite clear. That they don’t match with the known facts doesn’t appear to faze you in the slightest.
Mr. Cohen presented you with a simple request:
… show me where any [of the 9/11 commissioners] repudiated the report. Where do they suggest that anything other than the obvious happened on 9/11?

I followed your links, and I can’t find one instance. So, please, link and quote where a 9/11 commissioner repudiates what happened on 9/11.

And, finally, one thing puzzles me. Bushitler and Cheney were responsible for this incredible conspiracy, but couldn’t fake FDRs and WMD?

If there was one fact that should bring the truthers up short, but never does, that is it.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Wednesday, 31 March 2010 at 16:21

…many facts are in the public domain and not under government control.

Indeed. And after analyzing those facts, anomalies have been pointed out. That you refuse to accept that there are anomalies negates your assertion that “we think it’s already been sufficiently tested to take as accurate.”

Rather, your position appears to be “I’m happy with the previous conclusions.” Which is fine as far as it goes, but it’s not a position supported by rationality, science, or forensic investigation. It’s simply faith.

Truthers do not get to have facts simply because they want them.

Nor do antitruthers. For instance, what’s the proof that it was AA 77 that hit the Pentagon? It’s simply that the gov’t asserts that it did.

That doesn’t meet any reasonable standard for a “fact”. It’s simply a claim. That you wish to believe that it’s true doesn’t make it true. U.S. gov’t leaders, agencies and scientists asserted that AGW was a “fact”, and yet you are scornful of that claim - but it meets the exact same standards for truthfulness that you are willing to accept for their 9/11 explanations.

N.B. that I don’t write that it couldn’t be true - just that it needs to be proven. Which is well within the capacity of forensic science, if permitted to so do.

You assert that the events of 9/11 are not questionable, then do some hand-waving.
You can’t possibly have read what I have written here and write that.
Everyone who is not delusional and paranoid accepts those things happened.

Is it possible that you are unaware of the connotations of your own writings? The last quoted sentence pretty clearly supports a claim that you assert that the events of 9/11 are not questionable.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 31 March 2010 at 16:43

AVRRA;

That you refuse to accept that there are anomalies negates your assertion that “we think it’s already been sufficiently tested to take as accurate.”

For someone who asks others to look at this dispassionately as if it were a dry subject, you continue to fail to follow your own advice. I have never “refused to accept that there are anomalies”. But, in the real world, all datasets have anomalies. Even data for Newton’s Theory of Gravitation. Yet, I will state publically that I think Newtownian Gravity has been “sufficiently tested to be taken as accurate”. Do you consider that just as irrational*?

Here’s the other “dispassionate subject” point — Occam’s Razor. The hypothesis with the least anomalies is the most likely to be accurate. Currently, for 9/11, that’s the Common Model by an immense margin (which is why I consider it sufficiently tested and accurate). Put out an alternative that has fewer anomalies and it would be worth discussing. But if you can’t come up with one that is even in the same order of magnitude, railing on about how the data is noisy is pointless. Just like the bitter clingers who stay with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics because there’s nothing even close to better available, I will stick with the 9/11 Common Model for the same reasons.


1 Rest assured, people are opening new investigations in to Newtonian Gravity and that I have no objection to them.

erp Wednesday, 31 March 2010 at 17:33

Rough, the basic question remains, where is the plane?

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Friday, 02 April 2010 at 16:53

the basic question remains, where is the plane?

Yes, that’s a basic question, and yes, it remains, and yes, it’s of great interest, but as any investigator will tell you, don’t start with the questions that you can’t answer, start with those that you can.

Often that will lead you to the answers that you can’t know, which is true in this case as well.

For instance, suppose that you find a dead person. You can’t know who killed them, but maybe you can find out who they are and who saw them last, what they were doing before becoming dead, etc. Knowing that stuff might reveal who is the killer.

To be blunt, you’re starting from the wrong end. Turn it around.

erp Friday, 02 April 2010 at 17:45

Rough, Your scenario is preposterous. We know what happened to the plane and we know the names of the killers and the victims.

What we don’t know is what you think happened to the plane and where you think it is now.

All the rest is blather.

David Cohen Tuesday, 06 April 2010 at 08:50

What’s really bizarre about this thread is that, even among the Truthers, the Pentagon is seen as the best established part of the “official story.” The FDR, the radar tracks and hundreds of eyewitnesses (sitting in their cars on the highway next to the Pentagon and in buildings all around) agree that AA77 hit the Pentagon, and did so without landing anywhere else.

Add to that the documentation of plenty of wreckage at the site and the Truthers quickly moved on to WTC 7. The Pentagon has been abandoned to the no-planers, who are recognized to be delusional even within the Truther movement.

It’s also worth noting that AVRRA has now admitted to being a full-blown Truther, though he denied it before.

Audrea Sunday, 05 April 2015 at 01:44

At this moment I am ready to do my breakfast, when having my breakfast coming over again to read additional news.

May Sunday, 26 April 2015 at 13:30

Inspiring quest there. What occurred after? Good luck!

do acupressure mats work Sunday, 10 May 2015 at 15:54

I do not even understand how I stopped up right here, however I thought this post used to be great. I do not recognize who you are but certainly you’re going to a famous blogger in the event you aren’t already.

Cheers!

acupuncture Mat Monday, 11 May 2015 at 10:40

I need to to thank you for this fantastic read!! I definitely enjoyed every bit of it. I have got you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post_

Trackbacks
Tracked from Random Jottings: Pacifism Kills, #340. (Thank you for the tip, AOG) on 05 April 2010 at 20:15

AOG writes, ...I want to touch on this comment by Hey Skipper The common strategy prior to 9/11 was to accede to hijacker demands in order to ensure passenger safety. How do I know? I was flying for a passenger airline then. You will, of course, rememb...

Post a comment