Is Jesse Ventura right?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, August 22, 2024 21:33
VIEWED: 9077
PAGE 11 of 13
A note.
Back in 1980 something there was a show on TV where a member of the public and a celeb were partnered and given control of various vehicles (Tanks, bull dosers, sports cars.)
The final was to land Concorde using the BA flight simulator (landing is very difficult compared to normal level flight.)
Most teams flew the plane to the airfield (you set the heading on the fight navigation system and let the autonav fly the plane) most then crashed on landing..... but not all, at least one team made a fast but survivable landing in a plane with manual flight controls and 1970's avionics. This was with no instruction other than "over the radio" talk down.
People are surprisingly good at doing all kinds of things when they have to. Note also that the hijackers were not random zeebs that woke up one day and decided to do this, the best and brightest were picked to carry this out. The clumsy average Jihadist was left in Afghanistan.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's just say if they made in-flight control any easier, it would hand you an onscreen map with mouse and you would just click on it and say GO HERE.
I'd love to explain in detail, but not allowed to do that, and not sure it would be advisable if I were.
The flight qualification question kinda gets murky when you add in that many of the so-called hijackers weren't the people accused and factor in the credibility of some of the involved flight schools, cause getting a plane confiscated over 40+ pounds of heroin onboard doesn't help one's credibility a whole lot, and the lack of charges over that is enough to lift an eyebrow just by itself.
That stinks of leverage, but there's really no evidence to go on, other than at least one of the flight schools not being exactly sterling in reputation or credibility.
It does create a reasonable doubt about any documentation they may have provided, but I don't see that it's too revelant whether or not they could fly a single engine, what's relevant is did they have enough knowledge of the onboard instrumentation to set and follow a course, and I would say they very likely had that, especially if it was all they were interested in to begin with.
Also, to add to the questions above...
What the hell was Mohammed Atta doing on Jack Abramoff's casino boat less than a week before this happened ?
See, too many folk focus on small parts of the events and get all into nitpickery detail without really solving anything - the exact mechanics of buildings coming down are suspect by many folk, sure, but there's just not enough meat on the bone there to go chewing, just back and forth between experts and so-called experts from either side, none of which puts you any closer to the question of who exactly is responsible and what their reasons were.
But grilling folk who know the answers to some of the questions I have proposed, now that might open things up a little bit.
I rather doubt Abramoff has no idea why these berks were on one of his casino boats, I doubt the SEC doesn't know who made those trades, and I highly doubt Odigo doesn't know who sent that message.
And yet, we don't have those answers, do we ?
If you really wanna chase something like this down, it's people you should focus on, rather than technical details, look at any good investigative work, and it always comes down to the detective, the forensics personnel mostly serve to back up what the detective has put together from his investigation into the people involved.
Now back up and look at it from THAT perspective, and you'll see why these discussions generally don't carry forward anything that might help resolve the issue.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Erm, no, but yeah. Fletch said it better than me about the CoG. CTS tries to pass that off as a mere technicality, as it not being as simple as that, because if it is as simple as that, that's a major talking point gone. But it kinda is.
Originally posted by rue:
So in order to ensure a building falls in its own footprint the one thing you have to do is to make sure there are no large vertical members that will topple.
A building is like a house of cards, but the cards are steel and concrete. When a house of cards fails, it falls in it's own foot print.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's not just my posts. It's anyone who disagrees, and even when you do, it's usually to pick on one small side aspect.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
there is nothing to say.
Quote:Saying they did have flight experience when you said they don't isn't a technicality, no matter how much you'd like to portray it as. As far as you're concerned seems to be a case of confirmation bias to me. Sorry.
(If you want to get technical and say a little bit of single-engine experience counts as "flight experience," I'll grant that. But as far as I am concerned, they have no flight experience--whatever they have is negligible for the purposes of my question--and definitely none in jumbo jets.)
Quote:They're more than you've given us, in support of you're objections. Facts have been provided refuting you, none have been provided in support.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Or both? There's just been very few "facts" in this thread so far. All I've been hearing are explanations parroted from PBS documentaries.
Quote:Perhaps you're not paying attention, I submitted this earlier:
In fact, I think your post is the first to suggest where to look for more technical information that might answer my questions. For that, thank you to you too.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf
Quote:They weren't inexperienced.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I don't think it is impossible. I think it is highly unlikely, for all the reasons outlined in that article. An inexperienced pilot is not going to hit a building 200 feet wide going 750 feet/second, with 25 feet to spare on either side of the plane, without difficulty.
Quote:It's absolutely nothing like that at all. I don't think that deserves much more refutation than that, but since I can't just flatly state things I guess I'll have to. The hijackers weren't blindfolded, partially or otherwise for a start, so comparing them to someone doing something half blind is just plain silly. There's been quotes from pilots on this thread that say it is that easy. People have given you reasons, you respond with appeals to ridicule that seem based on nothing more than your desire to believe it's 'unlikely'. This is what is tedious, you are basing your objections on your gut feeling, while demanding hard evidence from everyone else, and even where it's provided you carry on stating the same thing as if it hasn't.
It is more like 16 year old successfully taking an exit ramp 7 feet wide in a 6 foot wide car, going 100 miles an hour, partially blindfolded. Not impossible, just unlikely.
Also, in science it's not enough to say "that theory isn't good enough". You have to prove it isn't yourself, and you have to present a better theory, neither of which you've done. Since you're "just asking questions" which apparently means they require no backup, and no answer is good enough or even worthy of refutation, lets forget that avenue for now. What's your alternate theory?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gravity is just a theory.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And let's just say we disagree on this one. Again, this is not what I hear from pilots with the experience I trust.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Let's just say if they made in-flight control any easier, it would hand you an onscreen map with mouse and you would just click on it and say GO HERE.
Quote:That is exactly right.
... the exact mechanics of buildings coming down are suspect by many folk, sure, but there's just not enough meat on the bone there to go chewing, just back and forth between experts and so-called experts from either side, none of which puts you any closer to the question of who exactly is responsible and what their reasons were.
The dilemma I see is we don't know who done it and how it was done. Most people are comfortable going with their best suspects. I would rather have no suspect at all than prematurely rest my case on the wrong one. Therein lies most of the conflicts; if you reject the conventional theory, you must have an alternate conspiracy theory. It always comes down to "If you don't accept my theory, why don't you pose yours and let me poke holes in it?"
People tend to have a hard time with simply not knowing. They can't accept this as an answer: "I don't have a theory, conventional or conspiracy. All the theories I've heard don't hold water."
Most of the questions I have don't break the bank in and of themselves. Analyzing each one of them to death doesn't bring me closer to any conclusion. It is the cumulative gestalt of loose ends and inconsistencies that tells me the official story reeks and that we've got the wrong people.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Um... so you look at opinions from several pilots and decide that one is correct and all the others aren't based on your own experience driving cars? If this is not what's happening here, please clarify for me, because my CTS merit meter is going down down down and that's no fun... (Cause you're a Firefly fan so I really want to have a high opinion of your judgement LOL!)
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Not an automatic trump. Just explaining where I'm coming from--answering your question on why I purposely ignore the alleged hijackers' flight experience.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
and yet your idea of flight experience is an automatic trump card?
Quote:OK, I understand that some folks here are hard to talk to - believe me I do! - and I've seen Rue go overboard more than once. I'm not surprised that you don't want to reply directly. But to dismiss the information Rue presents, just because you don't like the messenger... it just doesn't seem real professional, and not a good way to get to The Truth.Quote:I do not respond to any of Rue's posts as a matter of personal policy. Sometimes he makes good points, but nothing good has ever resulted from my conversing with Rue. We have uh...some bad history on these boards.
(Why do you just skip Rue's post? Does it lack merit? Why? Seriously, I'm wondering!)
Imagine the 9/11 investigation folks testifying in front of Congress, and one of them says: "Yes ma'am Mrs Congressperson. There was that guy who provided such-and-such vital information to us, but we didn't include any of that in our findings because... well, we just don't like him very much."
What would you think of this investigator? How seriously would take his reported results?
Quote:I'm still not seeing any other reason why you're believing one article over another. What I'm getting is that you have lots of experience with cars and a deep gut-level understanding of what it takes to pilot a jetliner though you're not actually a pilot at all.
I don't think it is impossible. I think it is highly unlikely, for all the reasons outlined in that article.
This is not convincing.
Did you note the points of weakness in your pilot's article? Are you going to address those, or just skip right by them?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm speaking as a citizen, not as a scientist. As a citizen, I can say "I'm not buying it" if I want to.
Also, in science it's not enough to say "that theory isn't good enough".
As a scientist, I can say there is insufficient information to come to any definitive, incontrovertible conclusions. It is perfectly ok for a scientist not to pretend to know what is going on. It is ok to have insufficient data from which to form a hypothesis or theory.
Quote:I have none.
What's your alternate theory?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The problem here is that this bag of "loose ends and inconsistencies" you hold out as proof does not hold much water, and clinging to it only weakens your case and leads you astray. Analzing each of your questions is necessary, though it may indeed cause the death of several - those which do not agree with observed reality. Pretending they do agree will only get you one place - further from the truth.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Most of the questions I have don't break the bank in and of themselves. Analyzing each one of them to death doesn't bring me closer to any conclusion. It is the cumulative gestalt of loose ends and inconsistencies that tells me the official story reeks and that we've got the wrong people.
If you are interested in finding the truth, having your bag of conspiracy theories deflated a bit is a GOOD THING. There are aspects of the official story I don't believe either. (Frem and anti, bless their hearts, touch on the more fruitful path imho.) But you will never get to the truth if you insist on chasing your tail on ridiculous ideas like "it should have fallen like a tree and not in it's own footprint." And "a trained pilot can't possibly fly a mostly automated plane through a mostly empty sky on a perfecly clear day."
Again I find myself wondering: what is it you want? To find the unknown truth, or to be proven right in what you already believe?
(And... are you changing focus away from the technical issues you raised above for a reason? Are you unable to defend them?)
EDIT: It is not OK for a scientist to ignore evidence because he or she just doesn't like things that way.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Usually, I read everything Rue writes and links to. Don't mistake not responding for dismissing.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
But to dismiss the information Rue presents, just because you don't like the messenger...
Quote:Rue's article is written by someone with 100 hours in a single engine plane. He thinks he can fly a 767, but he's never actually done it. My article was written by someone who HAS flown heavy aircraft. His experience carries more weight with me. And as I said, this is on top of the opinions of pilots I've talked to who has considerable flight experience I trust. Now I am not dismissing ANYONE's opinion here. I am still open to more opinions, which will continue to be weighed and evaluated. I have just seen insufficient opinion to convince me it is likely for pilots with the alleged hijackers' flight experience to accurately target WTC going 750 ft / sec.
I'm still not seeing any other reason why you're believing one article over another.
Quote:What weaknesses? Do you mean your assertion that you can see where NYC is because you've been flown around it several times? And various similar critiques? I don't know how to respond to that. No, it's not like that at all? Cause pilots I've talked to say it isn't like that at all?
Did you note the points of weakness in your pilot's article? Are you going to address those, or just skip right by them?
At some point, the nitpicking one way or the other isn't going to take this conversation anywhere. I've voiced my doubts, you've voiced why you think my doubts are bullshit. Let it go at that, shall we?
(Still working on your other points on the WTC collapse. I didn't forget.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME