• As a reminder, this section is for civil discussions only. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

Gone off track 9/11 General debate spinoff

Off-topic or diverted discussions moved into their own thread to keep the original topic on track.
Talk about reading an article and interpreting it to suit your narrative. Nothing at all in that article casts doubt on whether Hanjour was at the controls of AA77. It's just saying he was a particularly poor pilot, which in the context of post 9/11, it's quite interesting.

Thank you for misreading what I said. You're misinterpretation of my comment is fascinating.

You keep talking as if flying an aircraft into a large building is difficult. It's not. For a complete novice? Maybe. For someone who has extensive flying training, a commercial pilot's license, and many hours training in a simulator? Absolutely not. Not even for someone who was described as "poor".

But his extensive flying training has been disputed all along,including whether or not his license was real or not.

The comment "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon", isn't meant to cast doubt on whether it happened, but rather it's an exaggerated comment on how bad he really was as a pilot. In other words, "he was so bad that even something as simple as THAT surprises me".

That comment has been made by countless pilots for close to 20 years now.

Show me a quote from the "former employee" where they say "I don't believe Hanjour flew the aircraft into the Pentagon".

You lack reading comprehension apparently. What a shame.


BUT, if for one moment we take your theory to the next stage, donkeykong. How did the aircraft hit the WTC and Pentagon? Who flew them into the buildings?

I haven't submitted any theories,you did! Do you have mental issues,Betty? I have no clue who flew the planes into those targets,and neither do you! You're parroting the US government's conspiracy theory as fact. How do you personally know that to be fact? You can't ,cause you weren't there.
 
It's healthy to not believe everything you're told. What ISN'T healthy is when you ignore ACTUAL HARD FACTS because they don't suit your narrative.

Yep. This sounds good and reasonable! But what are - in the specific case of 9/11 - the ACTUAL HARD FACTS that it can't be a controlled detonation, which brought down WTC 1/2/7? The first reaction of zillion people - who have been witness of a controlled demolition of a large building - exactly saw this same pattern here. Ok. First impression of non-professionals. Ignore it. But then also thousands of engineers, scientists and architects insisted on this. People with good reputation, a good job, which have both feet on the ground. They did risk a lot being then accusated as cospiracists.
But we are running in circles here.

To be clear: There are also narratives, which I myself rate as weird/conspiracy. E.g. that moon landing never happened, but was a fake by NASA. :)
I don't follow the "scene" here? How many engineers/scientist with reputation insist on moon-landing being a fake?
 
???
My English so bad?
I thought, that I clearly expressed in my last paragraph, that I wholeheartedly believe in the reality of moon landings! :)

Your English is fine, far better than my ability to speak ANY other language! I just wanted to clarify.
 
But his extensive flying training has been disputed all along,including whether or not his license was real or not.

It's certainly a reality that licences are faked. Pakistan last month admitted around 30% of Pakistan International Airlines pilots held faked licences. Bear that in mind. 30% of PIA's pilots didn't have genuine licences yet were able to hold down jobs as actual line pilots, performing the role of a commercial pilot on international flights, in and out of foreign airports, without anybody smelling a rat. Not air traffic controllers, and not colleagues who DID have genuine licences.

What Hanjour did was nowhere near as demanding, and there's no dispute that he actually did have flying training.


That comment has been made by countless pilots for close to 20 years now.

And how many pilots have said it was perfectly feasible for Hanjour to fly a 757 into the Pentagon? You don't seem as interested in THOSE numbers.


I haven't submitted any theories,you did! Do you have mental issues,Betty? I have no clue who flew the planes into those targets,and neither do you!

No. You don't just absolve the responsibility of an alternative theory. You see it's quite difficult to come up with a plausible explanation of what happened on 9/11 other than it was a terrorist plot that took advantage of massive weaknesses in airport security, and a complacent security service. Because it's difficult you're choosing to say "I've no idea, it's not my job to come up with one".

A common conspiracy theory is that the Penagon wasn't hit by an aircraft at all, but in fact was hit by a missile. If that's the case, how do people explain where AA77 is now?



Yep. This sounds good and reasonable! But what are - in the specific case of 9/11 - the ACTUAL HARD FACTS that it can't be a controlled detonation, which brought down WTC 1/2/7? The first reaction of zillion people - who have been witness of a controlled demolition of a large building - exactly saw this same pattern here. Ok. First impression of non-professionals. Ignore it. But then also thousands of engineers, scientists and architects insisted on this. People with good reputation, a good job, which have both feet on the ground. They did risk a lot being then accusated as cospiracists.
But we are running in circles here.

Thousands of engineers, scientists and architects have NOT insisted the WTC was taken down by a controlled explosion. It's simply not true.
 
What Hanjour did was nowhere near as demanding, and there's no dispute that he actually did have flying training.

This is of course your opinion,that other pilots don't hold.

And how many pilots have said it was perfectly feasible for Hanjour to fly a 757 into the Pentagon? You don't seem as interested in THOSE numbers.

What I am saying is that there exist debate,for close to 20 years now. You're the one in denial,not I.

No. You don't just absolve the responsibility of an alternative theory. You see it's quite difficult to come up with a plausible explanation of what happened on 9/11 other than it was a terrorist plot that took advantage of massive weaknesses in airport security, and a complacent security service. Because it's difficult you're choosing to say "I've no idea, it's not my job to come up with one".

What I find difficult is accepting the load of horse shit that is the 9/11 commission report. Even several members themselves said that it was destined to fail. So the most heavily guarded air space in the world,arguably,drop the ball to that level of magnitude. Of course they did,it's the only reasonable assumption to make in your mind.

I'm saying you have no idea and all you're doing is echoing a narrative with more holes than a safety net. Same wholes that have been demonstrated by researchers,pilots,engineers,those on the ground including building personal,fire fighters and law enforcement alike. What about the 2.3 trillion dollars that up and vanished,and how miraculous it was that Hani Hanjour's plane hit the very section that was performing the Audit? What about the insider trading that took place prior to the attacks,the insurance claims made before just the same. How about Giuliani whisking away all the evidence to the greatest crime scene in US history to be sold as scrap metal to China? How about building 7 and the testimony of Barry Jennings? I could on for hours here. You nor I have any idea what actually transpired that day,the difference is,you accept the government narrative on face value. Ignoring the myriad of lies,contradictions,and fallacies that surround them.
 
What I am saying is that there exist debate,for close to 20 years now. You're the one in denial,not I.

No, a tiny minority of people refusing to accept a widely accepted version of events is emphatically NOT "debate". It's a conspiracy theory. Trying to say it's a debate in order to give it credibility will not change that.

There are people who say the Earth is flat. Just because they say it is, that doesn't mean there is any debate about it.


So the most heavily guarded air space in the world,arguably,drop the ball to that level of magnitude.

19 men boarded four jets with boxcutters (legal at the time, bizarrely) and took over four aircraft from crew who were specifically trained to concede in any hijacking attempt. How heavily guarded U.S. airspace was at the time is not the issue. It was guarded against conventional enemy attack from outside the borders. It absolutely wasn't designed to protect against multiple hijackings that began inside the U.S. I am literally an air traffic controller of 20 years. I know how it works. Airport security was weak with outdated regulations, inadequately trained and poorly motivated staff on minimum wage, and the hijackers exploited that. U.S. intelligence was slow to react to warnings. They had the intelligence, they just didn't know what to do with it. And finally it was complacency.


I'm saying you have no idea and all you're doing is echoing a narrative with more holes than a safety net. Same wholes that have been demonstrated by researchers,pilots,engineers,those on the ground including building personal,fire fighters and law enforcement alike. What about the 2.3 trillion dollars that up and vanished,and how miraculous it was that Hani Hanjour's plane hit the very section that was performing the Audit? What about the insider trading that took place prior to the attacks,the insurance claims made before just the same. How about Giuliani whisking away all the evidence to the greatest crime scene in US history to be sold as scrap metal to China? How about building 7 and the testimony of Barry Jennings? I could on for hours here. You nor I have any idea what actually transpired that day,the difference is,you accept the government narrative on face value. Ignoring the myriad of lies,contradictions,and fallacies that surround them.

What you are doing is what happens with most conspiracy theories. You've started with a theory and are trying to find evidence which supports it. That's not how investigation works, and certainly not aircraft crash investigation. It's the opposite. You start with ALL possible scenarios, and then gradually eliminate each scenario until you're left with one. And that will be the cause. With the 9/11 attacks, every single conspiracy theory that goes against the official report can be dismissed without much effort. "The hijackers didn't have much flying experience". Well, yes they did. They even had Commercial Pilot's Licences and extensive flight sim experience. "The Pentagon was hit by a missle, not an aircraft". Well, if that's the case, where is AA77 now? Did it just disappear off the face of the Earth? "The WTC towers wouldn't just collapse like that". Er, yes they would, because structural engineers have demonstrated that because THOSE towers were designed with the exterior walls supporting the structure, rather than having a central spine like most skyscrapers, it made them particularly vulnerable to this kind of damage. They WERE designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft strike, but not the impact of a medium-sized airliner flying at 350mph deliberately into the side of them, followed by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel burning for over an hour. And it goes on and on.

Humans can't deal with fate. They don't like to think they have no control over their destiny or the world they live in. It makes them feel vulnerable. Even with something as awful as 9/11, or JFK being shot, to think they were somehow part of a big plan gives a sense of relief, because if they weren't, then the reality is a lone gunman can assassinate the President, and a group of 19 men can kill thousands of people right under the noses of the people whose job it is to protect citizens, and that's a very scary thought indeed.

Now, I really don't want to give this ridiculous conversation any more oxygen.
 
No, a tiny minority of people refusing to accept a widely accepted version of events is emphatically NOT "debate". It's a conspiracy theory. Trying to say it's a debate in order to give it credibility will not change that.

There are people who say the Earth is flat. Just because they say it is, that doesn't mean there is any debate about it.

Garbage. You're arguing against circular logic while employing it yourself. You don't know what conspiracy theory means. Look up the words separately,then the term.
See why you've used it incorrectly countless times already.

19 men boarded four jets with boxcutters (legal at the time, bizarrely) and took over four aircraft from crew who were specifically trained to concede in any hijacking attempt. How heavily guarded U.S. airspace was at the time is not the issue. It was guarded against conventional enemy attack from outside the borders. It absolutely wasn't designed to protect against multiple hijackings that began inside the U.S. I am literally an air traffic controller of 20 years. I know how it works. Airport security was weak with outdated regulations, inadequately trained and poorly motivated staff on minimum wage, and the hijackers exploited that. U.S. intelligence was slow to react to warnings. They had the intelligence, they just didn't know what to do with it. And finally it was complacency.

More garbage. You have literally disregarded all the gaping wholes that researchers have pointed out in the crock of shit of an explanation.

What you are doing is what happens with most conspiracy theories. You've started with a theory and are trying to find evidence which supports it. That's not how investigation works, and certainly not aircraft crash investigation. It's the opposite. You start with ALL possible scenarios, and then gradually eliminate each scenario until you're left with one. And that will be the cause. With the 9/11 attacks, every single conspiracy theory that goes against the official report can be dismissed without much effort. "The hijackers didn't have much flying experience". Well, yes they did. They even had Commercial Pilot's Licences and extensive flight sim experience. "The Pentagon was hit by a missle, not an aircraft". Well, if that's the case, where is AA77 now? Did it just disappear off the face of the Earth? "The WTC towers wouldn't just collapse like that". Er, yes they would, because structural engineers have demonstrated that because THOSE towers were designed with the exterior walls supporting the structure, rather than having a central spine like most skyscrapers, it made them particularly vulnerable to this kind of damage. They WERE designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft strike, but not the impact of a medium-sized airliner flying at 350mph deliberately into the side of them, followed by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel burning for over an hour. And it goes on and on.

Humans can't deal with fate. They don't like to think they have no control over their destiny or the world they live in. It makes them feel vulnerable. Even with something as awful as 9/11, or JFK being shot, to think they were somehow part of a big plan gives a sense of relief, because if they weren't, then the reality is a lone gunman can assassinate the President, and a group of 19 men can kill thousands of people right under the noses of the people whose job it is to protect citizens, and that's a very scary thought indeed.

Now, I really don't want to give this ridiculous conversation any more oxygen.

You answered none of my questions,not even one,not surprising. All you did was regurgitate the official narrative that under scrutiny has been rendered a complete lie. It's a landfill at this point. It's hilarious how you ignore all of the information that has come to light over the last 19 years,even those who participated in the 9/11 commission called their report a failure. You believe in the magic theory too,lulz! Next you'll tell me the US government never orchestrated any false flag attacks.

1598226140224.webp
 
1,500 architects and engineers examined building 7 and disagreed with the official report. Anyone with 2 eyes can see it fell demolition style. I'm sure Betty has a spin for this too and maintains is was office fires that brought the building down lol.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
You nor I have any idea what actually transpired that day.

Add "And neither does the vast majority of people." and you have a precise, conclusive island of reason in a seemingly endless sea of heated discourse. In that particular sense, it is quite similar to November 22nd 1963. Perhaps the same will apply regarding "The Origins Of The COVID19 Virus".
 
Add "And neither does the vast majority of people." and you have a precise, conclusive island of reason in a seemingly endless sea of heated discourse.

I'm afraid the meaning behind this comment will be lost on donkeykong. But it's a great way to put things.
 
Right so I was called upon to comment from a pilots perspective. I’m really gonna avoid to weigh in if I really think the wtc and the pentagon got hit/ destroyed by a couple of aircrafts.

It is no tall order for anyone who has even a private pilot license and or some flight simulator time to fly into the wtc.
Now flying a 757 into the pentagon which is a low building and also not fly into the top of it rather hit it from the side.
.... all I can say I bitch please if you believe that. Is it doable ? Sure if you are a highly trained pilot in acrobatics/ fighter pilot. Or you will hit the ground and slide into the side of the pentagon leaving a track of devastation behind you a couple of km long.
A clean flight into the side of the pentagon.. lol you might as well believe any odd shit then.
 
Right so I was called upon to comment from a pilots perspective. I’m really gonna avoid to weigh in if I really think the wtc and the pentagon got hit/ destroyed by a couple of aircrafts.

It is no tall order for anyone who has even a private pilot license and or some flight simulator time to fly into the wtc.
Now flying a 757 into the pentagon which is a low building and also not fly into the top of it rather hit it from the side.
.... all I can say I bitch please if you believe that. Is it doable ? Sure if you are a highly trained pilot in acrobatics/ fighter pilot. Or you will hit the ground and slide into the side of the pentagon leaving a track of devastation behind you a couple of km long.
A clean flight into the side of the pentagon.. lol you might as well believe any odd shit then.
As far as I remember it was estimated, that the speed of the airplane at the moment of the crash was about 700 kmh, which, I suppose, made the things even much harder.
 
Oh come on.

Now flying a 757 into the pentagon which is a low building and also not fly into the top of it rather hit it from the side.
.... all I can say I bitch please if you believe that. Is it doable ? Sure if you are a highly trained pilot in acrobatics/ fighter pilot.

Or you had a go and got lucky. It doesn't mean it didn't happen just because you think it was difficult. You also clearly haven't seen the Pentagon in real life. It's not small in height.

So, if it wasn't Hanjour, who was it? Was it even an aircraft?


Or you will hit the ground and slide into the side of the pentagon leaving a track of devastation behind you a couple of km long.
A clean flight into the side of the pentagon.. lol you might as well believe any odd shit then.

I'm very surprised at you Asif. Very surprised. It really wouldn't leave a trail of destruction a "couple of km long". Not if it hits in the way it did. It DID demolish some street lamps, however when the wings hit them.


Popular Mechanics have an article which debunks the myths about AA77 hitting the Pentagon.


Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
 
As far as I remember it was estimated, that the speed of the airplane at the moment of the crash was about 700 kmh, which, I suppose, made the things even much harder.

Why? It's a big enough building to hit (biggest office space in the World at one point). People are talking like he was aiming for a particular window! He was trying to hit one the largest buildings in the world, and he didn't care which bit.

b92ES9O.webp


The place is huge, and yes, it's also quite high in reality. Not difficult at all.
 
Add "And neither does the vast majority of people." and you have a precise, conclusive island of reason in a seemingly endless sea of heated discourse. In that particular sense, it is quite similar to November 22nd 1963. Perhaps the same will apply regarding "The Origins Of The COVID19 Virus".

With a out pair of peer reviewed smoking guns, demonstrating ISOLATED "purified" virions of intact, active,and NON-synthetic CoV2. Then it's more so a matter of, if it actually exist,and if it causes CV19.

Right so I was called upon to comment from a pilots perspective. I’m really gonna avoid to weigh in if I really think the wtc and the pentagon got hit/ destroyed by a couple of aircrafts.

It is no tall order for anyone who has even a private pilot license and or some flight simulator time to fly into the wtc.
Now flying a 757 into the pentagon which is a low building and also not fly into the top of it rather hit it from the side.
.... all I can say I bitch please if you believe that. Is it doable ? Sure if you are a highly trained pilot in acrobatics/ fighter pilot. Or you will hit the ground and slide into the side of the pentagon leaving a track of devastation behind you a couple of km long.
A clean flight into the side of the pentagon.. lol you might as well believe any odd shit then.

I'm saying.... That shit was bananas. Betty is a crazy conspiracy theorist however.

Or you had a go and got lucky. It doesn't mean it didn't happen just because you think it was difficult. You also clearly haven't seen the Pentagon in real life. It's not small in height.

Get a grip of yourself.

So, if it wasn't Hanjour, who was it? Was it even an aircraft?

First intelligent and honest question you've asked all discussion. Truth is,we may never know,and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I'm very surprised at you Asif. Very surprised. It really wouldn't leave a trail of destruction a "couple of km long". Not if it hits in the way it did. It DID demolish some street lamps, however when the wings hit them.


Popular Mechanics have an article which debunks the myths about AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

Yeah Asif,how dare you contradict the official narrative!

Popular Mechanics,how low can you go to try and make your case?

Do you think LaArtsit is a "conspiracy theorist" too?

Now try and debunk Building 7 next. I have several more if you're interested,Mr. 'Casual Observer'.
 
Why? It's a big enough building to hit (biggest office space in the World at one point). People are talking like he was aiming for a particular window! He was trying to hit one the largest buildings in the world, and he didn't care which bit.


No logic to this conclusion,I'm just gonna say anything to try and appear right. That's how that works huh,Betty?
 
Thousands of engineers, scientists and architects have NOT insisted the WTC was taken down by a controlled explosion. It's simply not true.

?
The organization Architects&Engineers for 9/11 truth alone consists of about 2000 engineers and architects, which exactly state this.
I just cite them from their website:

We provide the evidence that indicates that three World Trade Center buildings #1 (North Tower), #2 (South Tower), and #7 (the 47-story high-rise across Vesey St.) were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives and incendiaries.
 
I’m not touching this shit with a 100ft pole.
I watched it live on the day BMW unveiled the E65 at the IAA. I saw what happened.
 

Trending content


Back
Top