Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

The implication is to hit both towers nearly center mass and the Pentagon at ground level at speeds well over 500 mph . . . three out of three attempts by three very inexperienced pilots is beyond statistical probability. That is not even talking about the problems with ground effects and Dutch roll issues.

Right, but how do you find the Pentagon from many miles away?

BUT IT HAPPENED. Whining about statistics doesn't make any difference after the fact.

One of the biggest buildings in the world? Surely, you jest.

funny- maxipad/kurt hardly shows up at all anymore (maybe 1 in every 50 pages these days
luser has only made about 3 posts since nancy took her bat and ball and left in a huff to the ning...
the only one thats made any major kookiness pagewise is clunk- and she only does it by page after page of technobabble as the trekkies call it (actually most trekkies wouldnt call it that- they would call it bullshit...)

its almost `uncanny' that at the exact same time that nancy took off in a huff to the ning...
that almost all the `nancy sock/trolls' also went real quiet...




hmmm........





(bites lip)

You're saying they could see the target buildings from where they took over the planes?

UMMM....

so if I drive down the far right of the road here- THATS exactly in the centre??

tell ya what- I'll divide a pile of $100 bills just down `the centre' like those planes hit

I get to take the `bigger' centre

shakes head

If you think the two senior pilots on the clips are full of it . . . that is your opinion . . . I think they made very logical and technically sound observations. One of which was backed up by repeated attempts to recreate the event via simulation . . . NIST and The 911 Commission . . . made no attempt to do the same to my knowledge with qualified or unqualified pilots in simulators of the aircraft involved or any other.

I think if you try it at over 200 mph after making a wide curve you may have a little more trouble.

Maybe not, but don't you think they studied the normal flight path of the flight they were going to hijack and studied the landmarks and how to get to the targets?

I don't know what they studied. You are speculating. I was responding to YOUR point about the visual size of the Pentagon.

I'll ask again... how did they navigate to the target buildings?

I just been googling wtc plane hit images...

you say center mass

IMHO wtc 1 looks about 8/10ths top to bottom and 2/3 from left to right

wtc2 looks more like 9/10th to the right and 1/4 down the top


none of any of the google images from any angle look like `centre mass'

unless centre is very high and off to one side- then indeed they were `centred' very well indeed.....

Many theories have been suggested. 1) Somehow, someway they programmed and used the Autopilot. 2) The aircraft were on remote telemetry controlled many miles way . . . an RPV (remotely piloted Vehicle). 3) God guided their hands. 4) They were all very, very, very lucky and had a good sense of direction at over 500 mph.

Sad.... from the Ning:

Reply by cherie helen campbell on June 1, 2010 at 7:01am
I find so many emails in my box that I do not know where to begin. Actually, I liked being able to go to new zeta and read the question and answers. This new polar shift blog format is awful. There are all kinds of questions that I would like to skip over since they really do not interest me and I find it a waste of time going through all the emails in my email box in hopes of answers to questions that do interest me. There has to be a better way. Maybe I need to just block incoming emails and go to the blog when it suites me as my time on the internet is limited. Really would like some help from computer savvy folks as this is an exercise in frustration for me. I have personal emails to respond to and all the emails coming into my email box from the polar shift blog is too overwhelming... information overload! Or as I like to say when I feel annoyed about babbling folks... verbal diarrhoea!

I feel like my question has not been answered. A 1996 article does not cut it for me... I could tell a child that they should go play in a field 10 years ago and it could have been safe to do that then. Now, if I told them to play in that same field... it may not be safe and as an adult, it would be very inappropriate to provide that advice.... criminal.
Now, I have personally been through a zeta white lie... where I packed up all my belongings in South Korea and sat in a bus stop waiting for the polar shift to take place... The zetas may have had a good laugh at the time... as I am sure that others did similar things since a time frame was given. As far as I know there are zetas with egos that have come through Nancy with condescending remarks to questions asked by followers of the zeta talk stuff... this is also lacking helpfulness for preparations to survive the upcoming polar shift.
Why is it so difficult to get a straight forward reply from the zetas about whether or not the upcoming polar shift may be less severe than initially written about on zetatalk. I am not a dreamer... I have prepared for the polar shift and have shared with many others to prepare themselves. As indicated in the initial question to Nancy and the zetas... There are others who are interested in the answer to this question.

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763624
Australia
6/4/2010 11:53 AM
Report abusive post
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat May 15 - Zetas 100% Wrong Yet Again!!
Quote

Do you mean the pilot being interviewed is lying? He said he had flown the same aircraft as a senior pilot and he could not have done what these people did . . . flying into buildings with the precision they accomplished.
 Quoting: George B

let us say that your `senior pilot' is apparently incapable of landing on a runway 50 ft wider than the runways at JFK- in which case it may be wondered if the term senior pilot is the aeronautical version of senior citizen...

the width of the twin towers (in this case 208 ft) according to

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

to support that every day hundreds of similar planes manage to `hit' a smaller width `strip' with no difficulty (something your `senior pilot' is apparently incapable of doing...)

I put forward this as evidence

[link to www.aci-na.org]

now I further put forward that this runway width increase was for 747's- not 757's- which are 195ft and 124ft respectively in wingspan

so if your senior pilot cant land a 124ft wide plane on a 208ft wide runway when several hundred other pilots a day can land 195ft wide planes on that exact runway..


well please tell me when he is flying the plane

I dont wish to die as he squints at the runway saying `Oh Magoo, you've done it again...'

I have always had a nagging question about how they could have found the buildings, but as I said, this is not an area of expertise for me.

No matter how you want to say it, two senior pilots familiar with the technology used by the terrorists think hitting both WTC and the Pentagon at ALL at the speeds and flight paths used (3 for 3) . . . was like pushing a camel through the eye of a needle.

I notice George B has gone into wash/rinse and repeat cycle

when confronted with facts, ignore and repeat original assertion

as an A.I. it sux

its pretty much what I learned 30 odd years ago

10 PRINT "INANE BABBLE HERE"
20 GOTO 10

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763624
Australia
6/4/2010 12:59 PM
Report abusive post
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat May 15 - Zetas 100% Wrong Yet Again!!
Quote

If you think the two senior pilots on the clips are full of it . . . that is your opinion . . . I think they made very logical and technically sound observations. One of which was backed up by repeated attempts to recreate the event via simulation . . . NIST and The 911 Commission . . . made no attempt to do the same to my knowledge with qualified or unqualified pilots in simulators of the aircraft involved or any other.
 Quoting: George B

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763624
Australia
6/4/2010 11:53 AM
Report abusive post
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat May 15 - Zetas 100% Wrong Yet Again!!
Quote

Do you mean the pilot being interviewed is lying? He said he had flown the same aircraft as a senior pilot and he could not have done what these people did . . . flying into buildings with the precision they accomplished.
 Quoting: George B

let us say that your `senior pilot' is apparently incapable of landing on a runway 50 ft wider than the runways at JFK- in which case it may be wondered if the term senior pilot is the aeronautical version of senior citizen...

the width of the twin towers (in this case 208 ft) according to

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

to support that every day hundreds of similar planes manage to `hit' a smaller width `strip' with no difficulty (something your `senior pilot' is apparently incapable of doing...)

I put forward this as evidence

[link to www.aci-na.org]

now I further put forward that this runway width increase was for 747's- not 757's- which are 195ft and 124ft respectively in wingspan

so if your senior pilot cant land a 124ft wide plane on a 208ft wide runway when several hundred other pilots a day can land 195ft wide planes on that exact runway..


well please tell me when he is flying the plane

I dont wish to die as he squints at the runway saying `Oh Magoo, you've done it again...'

I am glad to see you let your intuition influence you a bit . . . sometimes empirical evidence alone is inadequate to explain everything. We observe but we don't see all.

Nah... not intuition. Just a "how the fuck could they have done that?" in a logical sense.

From the Ning:

Reply by Gordon James Gianninoto 4 hours ago
Hi Rod. I find the Zeta description very confusing.

Heh. Bullshit is usually somewhat confusing, guys!

I was always under the impression that the initial hijacking was originally seen by the passengers and crew as a hostage type situation where the pilots where in control of the plane until it was close to the planned destinations. I don’t know if this has ever been resolved.

Why do you never mention the speed . . . speed is highly relevant to the ability of any pilot to aim, control and land any craft . . . a Cessna or a 747. Try even finding your hypothetical airport from a aircraft going over 500 mph.

What are you getting at? I'm on YOUR side in this debate (I think).

Images of 757 parts inside the Pentagon.

[link to 11-settembre.blogspot.com]

well in n.y- you looked for the tallest buildings around


(and of course from the planes viewpoint its that `classic' n.y. skyline in almost every movie ever made that had the wtc in it....)

and the pentagon well look for the big target LOL

or of course they learned as almost all pilots- even those on visual rules
(shit even the boy scouts learn to read maps....)

I sometimes wonder about the iq of some of our american continent posters- supposed adults seem baffled by things that an 8 yr old here would find quite simple...

(Orienteering is a cub scout badge- and cubs are 8-10 years old)

When do you conclude that what you just saw is so far away from probability that you start looking for different explanations?

yes...
speed....
do you really want to go there as well??
you already have shown that your senior pilot is more of a senior citizen


so assuming that n.y.c had its usual visual flight rules(IE smoggy as all furk)- how long do you think it will take a pilot from first spotting a distinctive landmark to trying to do a `destructive landing' on it (assuming mr magoo isnt flying the plane as well as landing it???

well??

Ahh... so they may have forced the pilots to head them in the right direction? That makes some sense.