Monday, November 13, 2006

Novice Pilot Hits Pentagon in Flight Simulator

This is apparently a Dutch film:

As you can see, he does not seem to have any particular difficulty in hitting the building.


At 13 November, 2006 09:43, Blogger James B. said...

But he hit the Pentagon at a different point than AA77 did, that proves it was a cruise missile! /end CT

At 13 November, 2006 10:56, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Watching a Dutch person using a flight simulator copy the plane crash into the Pentagon while listening to chipper Japanese pop music was the most surreal thing I've been a part of in some time.

Honestly, how rigorous does the testing need to be before the 9/11 conspiracy theorists just admit they basically hold their beliefs for literally no outside reason and go join Scientology or something

At 13 November, 2006 12:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a version that has english translations under it.

At 13 November, 2006 14:45, Blogger Curt Cameron said...

Jay, here's a clickable link to the video with translations. I changed it to the US Google Video site as well.

This video talks about the old CT idea that the G-forces would have ripped apart the plane, but honestly, I haven't seen them use that idea much ever since the flight analysis of 77 came out, which showed exactly the maneuver that Hanjour did. Before that, there were all kinds of crazy ideas. JohnDoeX at the LC forum drew his idea of the "official version" on a map, and it was that 77 made an almost full-circle turn at 500 mph, a turn with a ground-track diameter of only about 1/4 mile. I don't know where he pulled that idea out of, but I'm not surprised that he was not able to believe it really happened that way.

Anyway, since the official flight analysis has come out, there's been very little from the CT crowd about how Hanjour couldn't have been skilled enough to do that very sloppy maneuver.

At 13 November, 2006 15:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thx for that info curt :)

At 14 November, 2006 08:39, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

And this proves what? Oh nevermind, it proves nothing.

At 14 November, 2006 10:33, Blogger Alex said...

It proves yet another of your idiotic theories wrong. Does it prove that this is how it happened? No. But at least it'll shut you up next time you're tempted to try the "HE COULD NEVA HAV HIT IT!!!!" argument.

At 14 November, 2006 11:11, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

And this proves what? Oh nevermind, it proves nothing.

right, just like 100% of the "truth" movements "research"...proves nothing.


At 14 November, 2006 12:02, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

It proves yet another of your idiotic theories wrong. Does it prove that this is how it happened? No.
Alex, your a barrel of contradictions!
So why the fuck are you typing anything? Now it has come down to video games prove a hijacker flew into the Pentagon? Wait nevermind you answered that question.
You guys have certainly gotten a bit desperate don't you think?

Mac,right Right. It proves nothing.

At 14 November, 2006 12:08, Blogger Alex said...

Have you had a frontal lobotomy recently? Because I swear you weren't THIS dumb before....

At 14 November, 2006 12:10, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Anyway, since the official flight analysis has come out, there's been very little from the CT crowd about how Hanjour couldn't have been skilled enough to do that very sloppy maneuver.

The animation supplied by NTSB via a FOIA request, does not match the "official" flight path, according to Pilots for 9/11 Truth. According to this animation, apparently derived from Flight 77's FDR, Flight 77 did not hit the light poles. Why?

Again parts of the official conspiracy theory don't quite add up but supporters here want to continue to offer up this garbage as proof to the offical theory. Do you all choose to be blind to these facts or what?

At 14 November, 2006 12:11, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Have you had a frontal lobotomy recently?
LOL! Now that is funny. Just a UFO visit that is all. Know what I mean? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

At 14 November, 2006 22:11, Blogger Alex said...

Heh, thanks for that apathoid, I would have never thought of it if you hadn't pointed it out.

How much would you like to bet that the deniers will claim the variation between true and magnetic north is a government conspiracy?

At 15 November, 2006 09:31, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Perhaps this is the reason you have exactly 1 airline pilot(of tens of thousands) in the Denial movement..... I won't call you a moron, but before you make a moronic statement, you may want to do a little research before spouting off about things you are unaware of.

Steering an airplane isn't hard? Depends on how you steer it, where you steer it, how fast your going, the atitude/altitude of plane, crosswind, load, atmospheric conditions etc. etc. I do like the blanket statement though to support the OS that Hani 'flew it'.

For one, here is a list of core public members in pilotsfor9/11truth:

Apparently more qualified than you to issue statements about flying commercial airliners.

Well I won't go into evidence of you being a pilot and such but if you examined the website, the flight path, and the NIST release you would revamp your initial statement. And then you can explain why the flight path doesn't account for the downed light poles, the angle is wrong in relation to the trailer damage,and then you can answer the following from the website:

Questions for the US Govt (and OS pilots) regarding AA77 Flight Data Recorder.

1. The current FDR shows 480' MSL True Altitude, too high to hit the light poles. What are your findings of True Altitude at end of data recording 09:37:44. Why did you provide a Flight Data Recorder that shows the aircraft too high without a side letter of explanation? How did you come to your conclusion.

2. What is the vertical speed at end of data recording :44. How did you come to your conclusion.

3. What is the Absolute Altitude and end of data recording? How did you come to your conclusion.

4. Why does the csv file show the altimeter being set in the baro cor column on the descent through FL180, but the animation altimeter does not show it being set?(This is a blatant cover-up to confuse the average layman in hopes no one would adjust for local pressure to get True Altitude. Too bad for them we caught it).

5. Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?

6. Do you have any video showing a clear impact and/or of the plane on its approach to impact?

7. Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?

8. Why are there no system indication of any impact with any object up to and after :44?

9. Why does the csv file and animation show a right bank when the official report requires a left bank to be consistent with physical damage to the generator?

10. How did you come to the conclusion of 09:37:45 as the official impact time?

11. What is the exact chain of custody of the FDR? What date/time was it found? Where exactly was it found? Please provide documentation and names.

12. Why does the hijack timeline show a 3 min interval for hijacking to take place? Why was Capt. Burlingame reported to have not followed protocol for the Common Strategy prior to 9/11?

At 15 November, 2006 10:05, Blogger Alex said...

Heh, I love all these idiotic questions, when realistically, there's only a few relevant facts:

1) Multiple witnesses saw a commercial aircraft.

2) Parts from a 757 series aircraft were recovered at the scene.

3) Remains of passengers were recovered, and ID'd, at the scene.

That's it. Ask all the questions you want, I don't really care, but you're just obfuscating things. It's the equivalent of going to court to fight a ticket and saying:

Your Honour, I have a list of questions which must be answered before my guilt is established:

1) Why was the officer wearing pink socks?
2) At his angle to the license plate, it's quite possible that reflections from an X-ray laser would have blinded the officer, making it impossible for him to identify the vehicle properly.
3) Why did the officer not follow protocol in his angle of approach to the vehicle?

You'll get laughed out of court and told to pay the full goddamn fine. Either deal with the relevant facts of the case, or go home.

At 15 November, 2006 10:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I bet he didn't come up with those questions himself ;)

Must be some questioneer they have for every conspiracy nut to show to someone when they have nothing else left as evidence.

At 15 November, 2006 10:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Try and mess with your mind :)

At 15 November, 2006 10:29, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Jay Your a genius big guy. I referenced those questions from the website in the post.

At 15 November, 2006 10:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeh like i said ;) Ok, i was wrong, i missed that little part in your post.

At 15 November, 2006 12:03, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Alex Somehow I knew you would come up with someway to avoid the question/s. The fact is the NIST flight path doesn't match the story and those important facts such as damaged lightpoles and damaged trailers.

Head back to the mothership, big guy, no room for your elementary examples on this planet.

At 15 November, 2006 14:16, Blogger Alex said...

Swinger, why are you avoiding my questions? Answer me now! Why were you wearing pink socks on the day of the attacks?!? Fetzer tells me you didn't fly that day; how did you know the attacks would happen?!?! Your mother offered me sex in exchange for staying quiet about you; it's PROOF POSITIVE that you're a CIA agent!


Post a Comment

<< Home