The Official Former President Trump thread

[welshbairn]

5 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Neither was the "plane" apparently. What's the problem?

Quote

The 84/ 85 figure for videos came about as the result of a FOIA request for videos showing the Pentagon impact. FBI Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire responded with the following point:

...I subsequently searched a series of FBI evidence databases, including the FBI's Electronic Case File system and the FBI's Investigative Case Management System, and determined that the FBI possessed eighty-five (85) videotapes that might be potentially responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request. This determination was based on videotapes that had been submitted into FBI evidence, sent directly to the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, and/or obtained by the FBI's Washington Field Office.
 

The FBI are talking about 85 videos, but this is just the result of an initial search that includes (for example) all videos obtained by the Washington Field Office. If we move on from that then the numbers begin to fall dramatically.

56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."

Of the remaining 29 videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."

Of the 13 remaining tapes, 12 "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77."

Only one tape showed the Pentagon impact: the Pentagon's own security camera footage, that would later be released.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos

[Kuro]

Just now, welshbairn said:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos

This is just the same as the NIST report.  Look at the link, it shows you multiple cameras, their location relative to the reported flight path etc.

[The OP]

Kuro doesn’t believe the same plane which went missing after taking off in Boston bound for LAX hit one of the WTC towers. I cannot emphasise this enough. That’s what we’re dealing with here. This is not your average conspiracy nut who just thinks the Pentagon was hit by a missile because hitting two buildings killing thousands wasn’t enough. Nor is he the type who thinks you need to blow up buildings to justify a war because flying planes into them is insufficient justification. Nor is he the type who just thinks showering a building with flaming debris is enough to get rid of inconvenient files.

He actually thinks a plane took off, got rerouted to Ohio, all the passengers were murdered and a different plane flew into a building.

Presumably Flight 77 which contained the solicitor general’s wife and which took off from Dulles bound for LAX also met the same Ohio-based fate.

Bawwatchin, for his part, just hates the Jews and wants some attention.

[Kuro]

Just now, The OP said:

Kuro doesn’t believe the same plane which went missing after taking off in Boston bound for LAX hit one of the WTC towers. I cannot emphasise this enough. That’s what we’re dealing with here. This is not your average conspiracy nut who just thinks the Pentagon was hit by a missile because hitting two buildings killing thousands wasn’t enough. Nor is he the type who thinks you need to blow up buildings to justify a war because flying planes into them is insufficient justification. Nor is he the type who just thinks showering a building with flaming debris is enough to get rid of inconvenient files.

He actually thinks a plane took off, got rerouted to Ohio, all the passengers were murdered and a different plane flew into a building.

Presumably Flight 77 which contained the solicitor general’s wife and which took off from Dulles bound for LAX also met the same Ohio-based fate.

Bawwatchin, for his part, just hates the Jews and wants some attention.

If you disagree, with me and the pilots who flew that type of plane, explain why.  I have provided evidence backing up my claims, you haven't.  So lets hear it...

[The OP]

Just now, Kuro said:

If you disagree, with me and the pilots who flew that type of plane, explain why.  I have provided evidence backing up my claims, you haven't.  So lets hear it...

No you haven’t you dribbling imbecile, you are flailing around wildly posting debunked claptrap and some of the wildest theories dreamed up. 

[Kuro]

2 minutes ago, The OP said:

Kuro doesn’t believe the same plane which went missing after taking off in Boston bound for LAX hit one of the WTC towers. I cannot emphasise this enough. That’s what we’re dealing with here. This is not your average conspiracy nut who just thinks the Pentagon was hit by a missile because hitting two buildings killing thousands wasn’t enough. Nor is he the type who thinks you need to blow up buildings to justify a war because flying planes into them is insufficient justification. Nor is he the type who just thinks showering a building with flaming debris is enough to get rid of inconvenient files.

He actually thinks a plane took off, got rerouted to Ohio, all the passengers were murdered and a different plane flew into a building.

Presumably Flight 77 which contained the solicitor general’s wife and which took off from Dulles bound for LAX also met the same Ohio-based fate.

Bawwatchin, for his part, just hates the Jews and wants some attention.

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.



Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." http://americanbuddhist.net

Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."… 

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying." http://www.arcticbeacon.com

Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous... 

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile." http://911underground.com

[Kuro]

Just now, The OP said:

No you haven’t you dribbling imbecile, you are flailing around wildly posting debunked claptrap and some of the wildest theories dreamed up. 

Its actually you who believes things that defy the laws of physics.  You're arguing with people who pilot these exact planes, so explain why they're wrong.

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, Kuro said:

If you disagree, with me and the pilots who flew that type of plane, explain why.  I have provided evidence backing up my claims, you haven't.  So lets hear it...

There are over 600,000 pilots in America, it would be surprising if there weren't some nutters amongst them.

[Kuro]

Just now, welshbairn said:

There are over 600,000 pilots in America, it would be surprising if there weren't some nutters amongst them.

I see, good argument.  Wilfully ignorant, you want to believe its true, and will deflect and deny literally till your last breath.  

[The OP]

1 minute ago, Kuro said:

Its actually you who believes things that defy the laws of physics.  You're arguing with people who pilot these exact planes, so explain why they're wrong.

You have a severe inability to evaluate experts and evidence and to determine what the best expert and best evidence is. This is why I would again encourage you to never, ever sit on a jury. I don’t even think you should vote.

[Kuro]

Just now, The OP said:

You have a severe inability to evaluate experts and evidence and to determine what the best expert and best evidence is. This is why I would again encourage you to never, ever sit on a jury. I don’t even think you should vote.

You're arguing you know better than a pilot what the plane he flew is capable of doing.  What background in aviation do you have?

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Kuro doesn’t believe the same plane which went missing after taking off in Boston bound for LAX hit one of the WTC towers. I cannot emphasise this enough. That’s what we’re dealing with here. This is not your average conspiracy nut who just thinks the Pentagon was hit by a missile because hitting two buildings killing thousands wasn’t enough. Nor is he the type who thinks you need to blow up buildings to justify a war because flying planes into them is insufficient justification. Nor is he the type who just thinks showering a building with flaming debris is enough to get rid of inconvenient files.
He actually thinks a plane took off, got rerouted to Ohio, all the passengers were murdered and a different plane flew into a building.
Presumably Flight 77 which contained the solicitor general’s wife and which took off from Dulles bound for LAX also met the same Ohio-based fate.
Bawwatchin, for his part, just hates the Jews and wants some attention.

Flight lands in ohio and the passengers are killed, surely it’d just be less messy to just fly it into a building.
The fact is Saudi Arabia is responsible for 9/11.

[welshbairn]

6 minutes ago, Kuro said:

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.



Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." http://americanbuddhist.net

Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."… 

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying." http://www.arcticbeacon.com

Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous... 

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile." http://911underground.com

Quote

Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon near 488 knots. Based on FDR, the terrorist pilot was in a PIO, going from near weigh-less to twice your weight in the last few seconds. I would not call a crash into the Pentagon a plane in control at 500 mph; he crashed. I think it is ironic the dolt thinks you have to control a plane to crash it. Crashing is the opposite of control. 

There is no way for the terrorists to fail on crashing. The easiest thing to do in flying is crash. You don't need some fancy computer to help you crash. 

The 767/757 were picked because they are the easiest planes to fly. Unlike the early Boeing jets which had some control issues, the 757/767 were easy to fly and the bad flying qualities were engineered out. The 707 had a natural dutch-roll mode which made it hard to control for a novice pilot. The terrorists were bad pilots, even bad pilots could figure out which planes were the easiest to control with their inferior level of flight skills and suicide mentality. 

Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon at 488 knots, that is 560 mph, impacted the Pentagon at nearly sea level. The terrorist was only over max speed for 20 to 30 seconds and he crashed. 

Flight 11 did not exceed dive speed. OOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Flight 175 was in a dive all the way to the WTC, he impacted at 590 mph, in a dive, he crashed, not much control in crashing. What is the poor person's claim? 

The terrorists all crashed on 911; the dolt is right, you can't control a plane over 500 mph, you crash. He is right, and he debunks himself. 

Not one plane on 911 that exceeded 500 mph survived. So? 

There is nothing stopping the planes on 911 from exceeding MACH 1, they are just too clean. If you take a 767/757 up high enough, and point it at the ground, it will exceed MACH 1, an engine may fall off, skill might be ripped off the plane, etc. 

Ask the brilliant scholar to show the equations, the math why the plane can't go over 500 mph. 

Final summary. 

Flight 93 failed to reach the target, it crashed over 500 mph at a 40 degree angle down into the ground; failure.

Flight 11, impacted near dive speed, a speed allowed by certification, etc.

Flight 77, impacted at 560 mph, over 350 knots for less than 30 seconds. It crashed. 

Flight 175, was very high, had to dive all the way to the WTC, no way to slow down, impact near 590 mph, it crashed. If you have not flown a jet, a clean jet (landing gear up, flaps up, speed brakes down) it is near impossible to slow down at angles greater than 3 degrees. You would carry cruise speed all the way to the ground at angles greater than 3 degrees, or so. 

There is no magical wall stopping modern jet planes from going over 500 mph at any altitude. When I exceeded the maximum speed at 500 of a KC-135, the plane was more stable, and controllable. When a fellow pilot exceeded max speed for a while, his aircraft lost some skin (metal) from under the wing. If we fly over the max speed all the time, the aircraft will not meet expected life. 

Flight 93 crashed at over 500 mph, in a steep dive. Does not count as being controlled flight, they crashed.

Flight 11 never exceeded certificated speeds.

Flight 77 exceeded max speed for 20 seconds and crashed.

Flight 175 steep dive into the WTC at 590 mph, crashed. 

Not sure if you call these flight under control, they all crashed. I feel better about flying Boeing 767/757 knowing they did not shed major parts and skin as see on video on 911, Flight 175 seemed to be in one major piece at impact, that is a strong airframe, very good controls. 

Which part of the video of Flight 175 does the poor person fail to comprehend is a Boeing 767 going 590 mph at impact.
 

 

[The OP]

1 minute ago, Kuro said:

You're arguing you know better than a pilot what the plane he flew is capable of doing.  What background in aviation do you have?

You have been told a few times why a pilot is not best placed to determine the answer to this and yet you carry on. It would be possible to produce very many engineers and scientists who repudiate your sources because there is almost complete consensus on what happened, bar some minor details.

[BawWatchin]

31 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

[Miguel Sanchez]

Didn't Condoleezza tell you whether or not it was an inside job? @Kuro

[Kuro]

Just now, The OP said:

You have been told a few times why a pilot is not best placed to determine the answer to this and yet you carry on. It would be possible to produce very many engineers and scientists who repudiate your sources because there is almost complete consensus on what happened, bar some minor details.

By people who aren't qualified to make that judgement.  Explain why you are qualified to counter their opinion...

If there is complete consensus lets see proof, as that simply isn't the case.  You've never looked into this at all and don't know anything about it.

[Kuro]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

 

Credentials?

[The OP]

4 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Flight lands in ohio and the passengers are killed, surely it’d just be less messy to just fly it into a building.
The fact is Saudi Arabia is responsible for 9/11.

Crashing the murder planes would definitely be more simple. I reckon crashing four of them into a field would’ve done the trick.

The attacks were principally carried out by Saudis because it was easier for them to get US visas.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

This eye rape needs fucking killed with fire.