The Sensible Doubt - Danish 911

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, the planes were travelling at speeds which vastly exceeded what standard 767s can reach at low altitude, vastly exceeding.

They generally don't. Because they can't.

This is HUGE! If you can demonstrate that is correct, then you can expose the entire report as a lie, and prove the planes were not planes! Let's concentrate on that for a while as it's such as showstopper. What are the sources that say a 767 can't go at 590mph at 1000 feet AGL?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Consider this though: 757, 100ft 350kt (402mph) fly past followed by 45 degree pull out to 7,500ft.




http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3157106/


Pretty awesome, and not falling to pieces at all.
 

Mat

Member
I'm a debunker.

I assumed this was the same as "a Skeptic"? Non?


So you think we should have an investigation into the robot spy cats in my neighborhood?


If someone thinks there may be robot cats in your neighbourhood and wishes to investigate that then I certainly don't think you should debunk their wishes.

I don't think the government should pay for it without more evidence, but also I don't think the government should obstruct such an investigation.

Are you for or against it?


If enough people want it, I am for it.


This brings us back to the expert question, how many supposed experts would it take for you to question your beliefs about WTC7's collapse?

Should we have an investigation into the chemspot phenomenon?

WOW! OMG. That's great. I really hope they are not as theorised!

I had not heard of this until I clicked that link. Ummmm... I am not sure what to say. I certainly think that guy who has the website should investigate them further! I would personaly not read any threads about them until at least I had heard about them n a podcast.

But I'd be against spending taxpayer money on something unless there's good reason.

So, what would be a good reason, one that would make you support such an investigation?

As a skilled debunker, you must prepare the antithesis:)

What I'm FOR is evidence, and evidence based action.

To rephrase the above in answer, what would be good evidence, that would make you support some kind of action?

Cheers
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I assumed this was the same as "a Skeptic"? Non?

Non, debunkers are actively skeptical. Debunk is a verb, skeptical is a state. We try to determine what is best supported by evidence, and to expose poor evidence and claims supported by poor evidence. See my article on this topic:

https://www.metabunk.org/content/125-Why-use-the-word-Debunk


If someone thinks there may be robot cats in your neighbourhood and wishes to investigate that then I certainly don't think you should debunk their wishes.

I don't think the government should pay for it without more evidence, but also I don't think the government should obstruct such an investigation.
So you think that the CIA should have to open its files to my Robot Cat investigation? Say if I got 20 people on my side?

I don't think it's hard to understand what good evidence consists of. I don't want to get into an epistemological discussion, but basically for me it would be evidence that I cannot find errors or deficiencies in in, and which could stand up to peer review.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
An example of good evidence would be the planes flying faster than they are physically capable of. Or some detonators found in the rubble. Or audio of explosions. Or a credible whistleblower.
 

cheeple

Member
Hey guys, new to the site. I tried to find an active post on the 911 insider trading part, but couldn't find it....neither did I find where to start a post for myself (but since I did read the notice that first posts needed to be confirmed, I figured maybe the site 'rules' need you first to contribute to an active discussion before picking out new stuff.

So I found somebody 'debunking' the Loose Change assertions of the 911 insider trading prior to the event (mainly the supposed fact that put options on American Airlines were 11 times higher than 'normal') , but in the end his post or debunking makes it even worse than it was in advance http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1346
Yes I'm Familiar the German central bank conducted a study and found “almost irrefutable proof of insider trading.”
and the German Central bank President Ernst Welteke suggested that the insider trading occurred not only in shares of companies affected by the attacks, such as airlines and insurance companies, but also in gold and oil.

Even the Mainstream news reported it, so it has to be credible right? The extent of the 9/11-related informed trading was unprecedented. An ABC News Consultant, Jonathan Winer, said, “it’s absolutely unprecedented to see cases of insider trading covering the entire world from Japan to the US to North America to Europe.”

It was mainly by the
Carlyle Group of which George W. Bush was a senior counselor from 93 to 05.
 

Mat

Member
Non, debunkers are actively skeptical.

OK. That seems good. I hope there are more debunkers than conspiracy theorists.

So you think that the CIA should have to open its files to my Robot Cat investigation? Say if I got 20 people on my side?

I would imagine that to justify that you would need to show a relevant connection. If the CIA had published a document years ago detailing Robot Cat espionage then yes, that seems right.

I don't think it's hard to understand what good evidence consists of.

I think often it is very hard to do this, especially in cases of controversy, like this.

Why should we believe the NISTers more than the AE911ers? If you cant answer that you cant debunk this.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
This is HUGE! If you can demonstrate that is correct, then you can expose the entire report as a lie, and prove the planes were not planes! Let's concentrate on that for a while as it's such as showstopper. What are the sources that say a 767 can't go at 590mph at 1000 feet AGL?



http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-g...ohn-lear-son-of-learjet-inventor-1935777.html

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
George, you know that John Lear claiming something does not make it fact. It already seems a bit less than credible if he uses the word "doubles" where he means "squares".

Where's the science?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
http://911blogger.com/node/20232
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So when those pilots for 911 truth say the planes couldn't fly like that, you don't credit that?

No, because if it were so, then all the other pilots would agree, and most of them do not. Also if it were true it would be easily verifiable by everyone, and it's not. In fact the pilots have been shown to be wrong time and time again.

But most convincingly, there are regular high speed low altitude flybys at air shows that exceed what the pilots claim is the top speed.

Is this 400 mph plane falling apart?

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
While possible . . . it will not happen without a real accident . . .

"Considering all of these facts we are still left with the question: Can a 767-200 make 560mph ground speed at sea level or the equivalent of .74 of Mach speed? We know that it is definitely within its design parameters and that it can do so at high altitude (not in question), but can it do this at sea level (higher air density)? Considering that 560mph is 145mph faster than its recommended maximum operating speed (Lear’s argument), it is simply not possible to test this speed in a commercial 767-200 aircraft; it would be against the aircraft manufacturer’s recommendations, outside of standard company operating procedures and against the authorities’ rules (FAA in US). For these reasons we will not see a 767-200 attain 560mph in operation unless it is in the middle of an aircraft incident or accident. The only way to test this is in an accredited Full Flight Simulator."

http://911blogger.com/node/20232
 

cheeple

Member
While possible . . . it will not happen without a real accident . . .

"Considering all of these facts we are still left with the question: Can a 767-200 make 560mph ground speed at sea level or the equivalent of .74 of Mach speed? We know that it is definitely within its design parameters and that it can do so at high altitude (not in question), but can it do this at sea level (higher air density)? Considering that 560mph is 145mph faster than its recommended maximum operating speed (Lear’s argument), it is simply not possible to test this speed in a commercial 767-200 aircraft; it would be against the aircraft manufacturer’s recommendations, outside of standard company operating procedures and against the authorities’ rules (FAA in US). For these reasons we will not see a 767-200 attain 560mph in operation unless it is in the middle of an aircraft incident or accident. The only way to test this is in an accredited Full Flight Simulator."

http://911blogger.com/node/20232

If I may contribute to this thread may I ask if this feat is possible or even plausible would everyone here agree it would take an experienced Pilot of an exceptional degree?

If the answer is yes then are we to believe the Official Comission report that Mohammed al Qahtani with his limited skills pulled off an Iceman *much props if anyone gets that one.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George, you know that John Lear claiming something does not make it fact. It already seems a bit less than credible if he uses the word "doubles" where he means "squares".

Where's the science?
I was not defending anything . . . I just was presenting the statement filed in court . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If I may contribute to this thread may I ask if this feat is possible or even plausible would everyone here agree it would take an experienced Pilot of an exceptional degree?

If the answer is yes then are we to believe the Official Comission report that Mohammed al Qahtani with his limited skills pulled off an Iceman *much props if anyone gets that one.

I think without an autopilot it would be very difficult or highly unlikely that one could get three out of three hits on target . . . the question is could the hijackers have properly programmed and engaged the autopilots????
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think without an autopilot it would be very difficult or highly unlikely that one could get three out of three hits on target . . . the question is could the hijackers have properly programmed and engaged the autopilots????

Autopilot will not help in the slightest. You can't set the autopilot to "fly into that building". Autopilot just maintains heading, altitude and speed, or changes them to specific values.

Flying a 767 is very complicated. but simply STEERING a 767 in the air is very simple. You bank left, it goes left. You put the nose down, it goes down. So you just aim at the building, and fly into it. I've flow large planes into buildings in simulation. There's nothing to it. It's like a video game.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Autopilot will not help in the slightest. You can't set the autopilot to "fly into that building". Autopilot just maintains heading, altitude and speed, or changes them to specific values.

Flying a 767 is very complicated. but simply STEERING a 767 in the air is very simple. You bank left, it goes left. You put the nose down, it goes down. So you just aim at the building, and fly into it. I've flow large planes into buildings in simulation. There's nothing to it. It's like a video game.

That is not what a senior instructor pilot indicated who used simulators to try to do replicate the hijackers' feats . . . I will post his testimony when I relocate it . . .

My thought was not technically an autopilot but rather a remotely controlled aircraft using telimemtary . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That is not what a senior instructor pilot indicated who used simulators to try to do replicate the hijackers' feats . . . I will post his testimony when I relocate it . . .

My thought was not technically an autopilot but rather a remotely controlled aircraft using telimemtary . . .

Hmm, i.e. not an autopilot at all.

And why exactly would remote control help?

I've flown planes (a 747 as I recall) in the the WTC towers myself in simulation, and I've only got single-engine experience. It's not hard.
 

Met Watch

Moderator
Autopilot will not help in the slightest. You can't set the autopilot to "fly into that building". Autopilot just maintains heading, altitude and speed, or changes them to specific values.

Flying a 767 is very complicated. but simply STEERING a 767 in the air is very simple. You bank left, it goes left. You put the nose down, it goes down. So you just aim at the building, and fly into it. I've flow large planes into buildings in simulation. There's nothing to it. It's like a video game.

Agreed. The theory that the larger a plane is, the harder it is to steer it, is not completely true. When you look at all planes, from a Cessna to a jumbo jet, at bare basics they operate in the exact same way. Turn the yoke, move the ailerons, force the plane into a turn. Pull back or forward on the yoke, move the elevators, force the plane into a nose-up or nose-down pitch. Push the rudder petals and force a yaw. Just doing these three things can give someone manageable control of an aircraft.
 

Spongebob

Active Member
Oh gosh no. I remember in the 80s reading about thermite, I think I even tried to make it. I certainly thought about making it.

#

Better than MP3 but not as good as DAT? Ho Ho!

Please understand I am not sitting watching videos of collapses. I am not looking at timings and trying to work out freefall speeds, yada yada.

But if there are a bunch of people who are qualified to say "I am an Engineer and..." "I am a material scientist and..." then I feel no issue about acknowledging there may be some serious issues here. I wont simply poopoo like is so common on the internet; frankly, I can totally see why its such a comon responce and I do it often. But about homeopathy and paul-is-dead.

Sometimes things are very much not as they seem.



I try hard not to stoop to that silly little nomencultual debate, but to answer your question:

I belive in some conspiracies.

I am skeptical about some conspiracies.

I believe some conspiracies are fully false.


How about you bob?

You believe in "some" conspiracies - Or, you believe the 9/11 conspiracies?

From your posts it (appears) that you whole heartedly believe the CD theory? Despite none of the available evidence supporting this...

You also think that the planes could not crash into buildings at the speeds they did? Yet they could and did...

You also mentioned that the planes were "drones" ? Which you have no evidence they were, or needed to be...

Any more to add to the list re-9/11?



Explain exactly which theories you believe are "fully false" please.
 

Mat

Member
You believe in "some" conspiracies - Or, you believe the 9/11 conspiracies?

Some.

From your posts it (appears) that you whole heartedly believe the CD theory? Despite none of the available evidence supporting this...

You misinterpret me. As a general principle of wise words try not to go around telling people the magnesite of their convictions, disbeliefs etc.

RE the CD views, I do not know. It is clear to see many experts say one thing and many say another. This is the definition of controversy:)

You also think that the planes could not crash into buildings at the speeds they did? Yet they could and did...

Again you misinterpret me. many experts, Pilots, say those planes could not have performed those manuvers, you say they could, who should I believe?

You also mentioned that the planes were "drones" ? Which you have no evidence they were, or needed to be...

Why do you say i think the planes were drones?

Any more to add to the list re-9/11?

Not especially.

Can you answer my question regarding which theories you think are true, false and undecided?


Explain exactly which theories you believe are "fully false" please.

Lady Dianna being murdered. Armstrong on the moon. I believe these conspiracy theories did not happen. Though new information could always come along....


Please try not to be reactive combative if you want to chat with me. Its so booooring!:)
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That is not what a senior instructor pilot indicated who used simulators to try to do replicate the hijackers' feats . . . I will post his testimony when I relocate it . . .

My thought was not technically an autopilot but rather a remotely controlled aircraft using telimemtary . . .

Comments on ability to hit the buildings from a senior pilot and simulator instructor on a 737 . . . issues Dutch Roll, Speed, control surface flutter, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78&feature=related

 

Mat

Member
Comments on ability to hit the buildings from a senior pilot and simulator instructor on a 737 . . . issues Dutch Roll, Speed, control surface flutter, etc.


Thank's for that:)

I am sure we can find many holes in the statements as items of evidence. Eg

We do not know that the simulator accounted for Variable V (material properties, control properties, pilot's skill under pressure....)

And I am sure the deniers will often bog the conspiracy skeptic down into the details; as if the enire edifice of the deep and wide theory depends on the this video.

What I say as a conspiracy skeptic/debunker is that this video confirms, rather than dis-confirms the hypothesis that: A human pilot could not have flown those planes*

It isn't a proof, but it confirms it.

If someone wishes to argue against this conclusion based on the video I think they would need give give a specific reason as to why, rather than just pointing out the obvious and expected possibilities of dis-confirmation.

Mat
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
He had me going there, until he said at 4:55 "at 300 knots in an airliner, if you move the controls as you would expect to do in a little airplane, you couldn't stand the g-forces, everything has to be just fingertip". - this seems just silly, I was taught to fly with fingertip adjustments on a single engine Piper.

One wonders why AE911 don't harp on this more. If it were in fact impossible, then surely it would be quite straightforward to demonstrate?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
He had me going there, until he said at 4:55 "at 300 knots in an airliner, if you move the controls as you would expect to do in a little airplane, you couldn't stand the g-forces, everything has to be just fingertip". - this seems just silly, I was taught to fly with fingertip adjustments on a single engine Piper.

One wonders why AE911 don't harp on this more. If it were in fact impossible, then surely it would be quite straightforward to demonstrate?
Your dismissal of the entire video based on the criticism above is not very convincing . . . seems it has not been demonstrated because of FAA rules and safety constraints . . . and one would have to sacrifice a pilot and aircraft to prove the issue . . . I suppose one could suspend light columns in the air simulating the edges of one of the WTC Towers and have people trained to fly a 767 but who have never landed one try to hit the targets . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Your dismissal of the entire video based on the criticism above is not very convincing . . . seems it has not been demonstrated because of FAA rules and safety constraints . . . and one would have to sacrifice a pilot and aircraft to prove the issue . . . I suppose one could suspend light columns in the air simulating the edges of one of the WTC Towers and have people trained to fly a 767 but who have never landed one try to hit the targets . . .

Well, that's hardly my only criticism, just what tipped me off that the speaker was not really making sense.

I'd wager $100 that I could hit the WTC in a 767 flight simulator at 500 knots on my first attempt. I can fly a small plane, and I've played a lot of video games.

There are really three seperate questions:

1) Can a 767 fly at 500 knots at 1000 feet?
2) Can it be controlled at that speed?
3) Can a single engine trained pilot steer it into a 200 foot wide target at that speed?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well, that's hardly my only criticism, just what tipped me off that the speaker was not really making sense.

I'd wager $100 that I could hit the WTC in a 767 flight simulator at 500 knots on my first attempt. I can fly a small plane, and I've played a lot of video games.

There are really three seperate questions:

1) Can a 767 fly at 500 knots at 1000 feet?
2) Can it be controlled at that speed?
3) Can a single engine trained pilot steer it into a 200 foot wide target at that speed?
Reasonable . . . but someone well practiced in simulators may not be the proper subject to perform a test . . . seems the light column test would be possible . . . that would convince me it is possible . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Reasonable . . . but someone well practiced in simulators may not be the proper subject to perform a test . . . seems the light column test would be possible . . . that would convince me it is possible . . .

Oh, I've only used desktop simulators, not actual simulators. But I suspect an actual simulator would be even easier to steer, as you get much better feedback.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Oh, I've only used desktop simulators, not actual simulators. But I suspect an actual simulator would be even easier to steer, as you get much better feedback.
I have flown real simulators at AF flight schools . . . have not flown desk top simulators . . . my impression . . . the real simulators are very easy to crash . . . LoL!!!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have flown real simulators at AF flight schools . . . have not flown desk top simulators . . . my impression . . . the real simulators are very easy to crash . . . LoL!!!

Crash is what they were trying to do. You were probably trying to land.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, usually landing but not always . . . however, theyneeded to make the critical turns and maneuvers necessary without crashing before crashing intothe towers and Pentagon . . .

Without crashing into what? They were up in the air.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Without crashing into what? They were up in the air.

The aircraft at the Pentagon was rather close to the ground during its final maneuvers a small error and it would have never made it to the building . . . the TWC aircraft were descending into Manhattan . . . as in a landing apporach . . . and that is when major errors are made in a simulator . . . at the speeds they were going a tiny error would have ended in a crash . . . before they got to the buildings . . . IMO . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The aircraft at the Pentagon was rather close to the ground during its final maneuvers a small error and it would have never made it to the building . . . the TWC aircraft were descending into Manhattan . . . as in a landing apporach . . . and that is when major errors are made in a simulator . . . at the speeds they were going a tiny error would have ended in a crash . . . before they got to the buildings . . . IMO . . .

What kind of tiny error? And they were not in a "landing approach", they were in a "crash into buildings at high speed approach".
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
What kind of tiny error? And they were not in a "landing approach", they were in a "crash into buildings at high speed approach".

Maybe, similar judgment errors that I made when flying the simulators (rate of descent and air speed). . . when I crashed it was well before reaching the landing strip . . . of course I was not going 500 knots . . . most likely I lost too much air speed . . . LoL!! However, we have experts in the two videos above who don't think inexperienced individuals could make the corrections necessary in the last minutes of their flights to have hit three out of three targets . . . I tend to believe their estimates . . . seems investigators could easily prove it probable . . . or not . . . I would love to see such a demonstration . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No way that was an airplane that hit the Pentagon, that was a missile.

Many people agree with you . . . I think a full sized civilian airliner would have much trouble accomplishing the feat myself . . .
Commander Ted Muga, U.S. Navy (ret)
is a Navy aviator, who, after retirement, had a second career as a commercial airline pilot for Pan-Am.
In a 2007 interview. . .
Muga stated,
“The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of
7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can, in fact, structurally
somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it
would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are
designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for
passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are
structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots
to do that. ... I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come
close to performing a maneuver of that nature.
“And as far as hijacking the airplanes, once again getting back to the
nature of pilots and airplanes, there is no way that a pilot would give up an
airplane to hijackers. ... I mean, hell, a guy doesn't give up a TV remote
control much less a complicated 757. And so to think that pilots would
allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150 pound guys
with a one-inch blade boxcutter is ridiculous.
“And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the
hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being
hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it
over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ..."

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Article Military Officers Challenge 911.pdf
 

cheeple

Member
Many people agree with you . . . I think a full sized civilian airliner would have much trouble accomplishing the feat myself . . .
Commander Ted Muga, U.S. Navy (ret)
is a Navy aviator, who, after retirement, had a second career as a commercial airline pilot for Pan-Am.
In a 2007 interview. . .
Muga stated,
“The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of
7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can, in fact, structurally
somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it
would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are
designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for
passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are
structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots
to do that. ... I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come
close to performing a maneuver of that nature.
“And as far as hijacking the airplanes, once again getting back to the
nature of pilots and airplanes, there is no way that a pilot would give up an
airplane to hijackers. ... I mean, hell, a guy doesn't give up a TV remote
control much less a complicated 757. And so to think that pilots would
allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150 pound guys
with a one-inch blade boxcutter is ridiculous.
“And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the
hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being
hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it
over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ..."

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Article%20Military%20Officers%20Challenge%20911.pdf

And not only that, after it accomplished a very difficult feat it then disintegrated into powder..........LOL!
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Graham2001 Aulis article uses NASA documents to cast doubt on the reality of Apollo Conspiracy Theories 26

Related Articles

Top