See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 demolition theory challenged
Source:
BBC
URL Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
Published: Sep 11, 2007
Author: staff
Post Date: 2010-07-17 17:31:29 by buckeroo
Ping List: *4um PSY-OP Club* Subscribe to *4um PSY-OP Club*
Keywords: None
Views: 17428
Comments: 1209
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total. One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition". The study suggests a different explanation for how the towers fell. Over 2,800 people were killed in the devastating attacks on New York. After reviewing television footage of the Trade Center's destruction, engineers had proposed the idea of "progressive collapse" to explain the way the twin towers disintegrated on 11 September 2001. This mode of structural failure describes the way the building fell straight down rather than toppling, with each successive floor crushing the one beneath (an effect called "pancaking"). Resistance to collapse Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localised failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures. Man stands amid rubble of the World Trade Center, AFP/Getty Once the collapse began, it was destined to be "rapid and total" In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts. "The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website. Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse. His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down. This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground. 'Fair assumption' The University of Cambridge engineer said his results therefore suggested progressive collapse was "a fair assumption in terms of how the building fell". "One thing that confounded engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly," said Dr Seffen. The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses, AP Conspiracy theorists see evidence of a "controlled detonation" He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings. The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronised rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center. This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers. Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble. Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse. Dr Seffen's research could help inform future building design.
[Thread Locked] Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1201.
#237. To: buckeroo (#0)
This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground. Actually a free fall from the 110th floor would have taken 9.22 seconds. Wow, the towers fell FASTER than free falling objects, like being sucked into a huge vacuum cleaner. Amazing.
Show me your calculation and/or source material.
Oh man, are you REALLY that stupid? Besides it being stated in virtually every report that exists in terms of free fall comparisons, here's the basic physics, which you apparently never learned in school. You can look up the formula, it's t = SQRT(2d/g) t = time, d = distance, g = acceleration due to gravity (32.2 feet per second/second) The roof heights of the WTC towers were 1368 ft for WTC1, 1362 feet for WTC2. Acceleration due to gravity is (32.17 feet per second)/second For WTC1; t = SQRT(2*1368/32.17) = 9.222 seconds For WTC2; t = SQRT(2*1362/32.17) = 9.202 seconds So there you go buck, try looking things up yourself next time before you make a fool of yourself.
Why do you think that your height measurement for the "top" of each of the WTC towers is correct? The towers were hit on the 96th and 81st floors, this means that "free fall" time values were 8.61 and 7.91 seconds respectively because this is the location of initial forces (de plane! de plane!) that buckled the upper floors. So, you are incorrect by throwing your silly brick off the 110th floor... for a publick demonstration of your astounding assumptions to thwart otherwise serious study and investigation into and about a tragic issue. This notion of "free fall" has always been used by the TWOOFERS and it is an incorrect assumption for the top of either of the building for the calculation; it is utter nonsense.
Hahahahhaa. More back pedaling after they themselves use 9.22 seconds as evidenced on Rosie's video clip. Where she's obviously parroting something she doesn't understand the least from a CT website.
Rosie is obviously brighter than you. You don't judge collapse time for only PART of the building collapsing, you INCLUDE the ENTIRE building from the very top. Do they give you stupid pills on your job?
You're the people bantering around the "9.22 seconds," "physical impossibility" phrases. You've had over 8 years and still can't come up with coherent, supportable, verifiable versions of events. Take another few years to get your stories straight. It's not like anybody will be holding their breaths.
Yep, the building SHOULD NOT HAVE collapsed as if it were falling through a vacuum, yet buck's expert "calculated" precisely that. Do you and he subscribe to "Junk Science Monthly"? Or do you just make this shit up as you go?
There is a very good reason why real world controlled demolition uses so much time, energy, and materials to create conditions getting as close to free fall speeds as possible. And the consequence of this reason is, if the collapse does not approach free fall speeds, it wasn't done by professional controlled demolition experts. The reason is, it is known with complete certainty that the force of gravity, if unobstructed by other forces, will pull the building straight down into its own footprint. Where it can be neatly disposed of without damage to anything else not intended to be destroyed. When the structure is not sufficiently prepared by getting rid of any and all remaining obstacles in the way of straight down vertical collapse, there are additional uncertainties introduced of timing, and rerouting gravitational forces in lines other than straight up and down. So professional demolitions people take extra time to make sure the fall will be as close to vertical free fall speeds as possible to avoid introducing other variables which may cause unpredicable unmanageable results. If a building doesn't fall at close to free fall speeds, its fall has not been set up by controlled demolition. Fifeeen seconds vs. nine seconds for a collapse is not even close to free fall speeds. The controlled demolition theory is debunked by actual and observed free fall speeds indicating lack of thorough setup for a building collapse many times larger than the largest recorded CD.
Wrong. All the demolition has to do is START the collapse, and with strategically placed charges and computer aided timing, the collapse can take however long they want it to in terms of structural collapse below the initial point of failure. Thing is, it collapsed WAY too fast for gravity to have done it alone, where a falling body meeting resistance slows down, and the resistance may eventually give way, but it takes some finite amount of time for that to happen. You're saying it took 6 seconds to smash and break EVERY iota of resistance, since the 9 seconds of falling through a vacuum doesn't correlate with the time it took to overcome the resistance.
But a demolition did not start the collapses. The jet crashes did.
Er, no buckie. The buildings did NOT start to fall down when they were hit. They did NOT start to fall till the precise time they collapsed.
So there was no debris scattered around immediately after the impacts? Not much time... it was amazing they stood for so long ... but it took time for the central structure to lose stress capability that caused the later crush down phase.
Not amazing at all, what's amazing is that they fell at all, never mind disintegrate into dust while coming down close to free fall speeds.
ROTFL .... no building is designed to withstand that kind of impact.
So what IS your excuse for WT7? Also the architect for those buildings claims they were indeed made to endure the impact of a 747. Also, this architect calls BS on much of the story......he has far more experience in this field than you do Buck.
Your story is FALSE or fabricated. The twins were designed for a 707 as in a FOG with a velocity well below 550mi/hr. (For you, that means much less inertial force as what occurred on 9/11 by the relative impacts caused by terrorist crashes)
You prove, once again, that you don't know wtf you are talking about. Statements by Engineers Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires. John Skilling John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3 A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners traveling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The twins were designed for a 707 as in a FOG with a velocity well below 550mi/hr. (For you, that means much less inertial force as what occurred on 9/11 by the relative impacts caused by terrorist crashes) You prove, once again, that you don't know wtf you are talking about. No, Tw00fster, you don't know WTF you're talking about. Federal airspace rules prohibit any commercial aircraft from going over 250 KIAS below 10,000 altitude or in "Class B airspace" which surrounds jet airports. New York City is completely covered by both restrictions. There would be no reason to design a building able to withstand a crash whose speed presumably never would be allowed by Air Traffic Control in the first place. Furthermore, structural engineer calculations aren't built in mockups and then tested to make sure the calculations are correct. Last but not least, there is no record of a design specifying a 500 mph impact. This is hearsay unsupported by any files. If you have a file supporting 500 mph impact of a 707/767 the produce it. You lie, you lose.
Well then, you've lost long ago if that's true...
Loser, here is a partial list of deficiencies you cannot answer with any satisfaction. As time goes on the list will get bigger. Just as a partial list, you've been provided explicit proofs of the following phenomena and many others.
Glad you posted that so that some of the folks who think Hani Hanjour actually did what they claimed he did will know that he could NOT have done it. They get quiet when you mention that he allegedly took control somewhere in the skies over Ohio and then flew it back to the Pentagon like a stunt pilot. But at the time the plane was hijacked, even if the weather had been perfect and not a cloud in the sky, he would not have had any idea where he was over the landscape. It all looks pretty much the same from heights greater than the top of Mt. Everest. And it is certain that a man who couldn't fly a Cessna could not fly what they claimed hit the Pentagon.
The most difficult parts of pilot tests are takoffs and landings. Hanjour didn't have to do either when he took over an aircraft already airborne and intended to be crashed, not landed.
The most difficult parts of pilot tests are takoffs and landings. Take-offs and landings in a Cessna are relatively easy, with the take-off being such that just about ANYONE could do it. Flying is the relatively easy part. Hanjour couldn't do any of the above even in a Cessna, never mind a heavy multi-engine airliner with all of the complex systems that need to be set correctly. We are supposed to believe however that he brought the plane down from 35,000 feet to treetop level at 400+ mph, then performed a manuever not any professional pilot could pulloff, and that is to descend to 20 feet off the ground at 530 mph (which is basically performing a landing), defying the laws of aerodynamics (in terms of ground effect), flying straight and level directly into the Pentagon wall. Yeah right. Hanjour didn't have to do either when he took over an aircraft already airborne and intended to be crashed, not landed. Besides LANDING the aircraft short of having his wheels down, AT 530 MPH (which the aircraft basically CAN'T DO), he navigated the plane from Ohio without any navigational aids in terms of ground references, so we must assume he was familiar with IFR (instrument flight rules) procedures using sophisticated flight systems and instruments, where he couldn't even fly a Cessna VFR, (visual flight rules).
Once again, you mindlessly parrot bull$hit from ko00ksites, try to pass it off as truth, and call anybody who disagrees with your $hitpile a liar and a government agent. Hanjour actually got a commercial pilot license in 1999 but was unable to get a job. However in 2001 he was showing problems. At the same time he was taking advanced simulator training, so he knew his way around the school enough to put in a spotty performance. Again, takeoffs and landings are by far the most difficult parts of flight trainings. Because Hanjour was not interested in takeoffs and landings he did not have to do well on those most difficult parts of the schooling. Furthermore the Pentagon crash itself shows an inexperirenced pilot. The wings were rocking on the final approach, and he went in to the back of the building because the plane got away from him when he tried to hit the Potomac-facing north face of the building which was where the high value target offices including Rumsfeld's were. The Pentagon hit had little or no destructive value as far as harming the US interests. Haji Hanjour ... However, in January 2001, Arizona JetTech flight school managers reported him to the FAA at least five times because his English was inadequate for the commercial pilot’s certificate he had already obtained. It took him five hours to complete an oral exam meant to last just two hours, said Peggy Chevrette. Hanjour failed UA English classes with a 0.26 GPA and a JetTech manager said “He could not fly at all.” His FAA certificate had become invalid late in 1999 when he failed to take a mandatory medical examination. In February, Hanjour began advanced simulator training in Mesa Arizona Hanjour continued with simulator training because that was where he could practice flying an airplane already airborne and crashing it into a target on a preplanned route, and not have to bother with the other parts of flying including speaking English he could not care less about.
Because Hanjour was not interested in takeoffs and landings he did not have to do well on those most difficult parts of the schooling. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! He LANDED a 757 on the Pentagon lawn at 530 mph, short of putting down his wheels, and FLEW IT STRAIGHT INTO THE WALL. Of course such a feat is virtually IMPOSSIBLE, yet he supposedly did it anyways. What don't you understand here?
He didn't fly it straight into the wall. (1) He hit the wall at an oblique angle which caused the aircraft to not achieve the maximum penatation of a 90 degree impact. (2) He didn't land on the lawn. As I've repeatedly said ground effect makes an air cushion supporting nap of the earth lift the closer the fuselage and wings get to the ground. (3) The wings were oscillating right up to final impact, clipping poles and brushing aside construction equipment, and ingesting a part of a luminary into the engine. This is not an under control approach or crash. (4) The entire secion hit did minimum damage to American interests. The hit was not in a place doing any substantial damage to the US. This is because he was trying to salvage a hit on the building at all instead of hitting a high value section.
(1) He hit the wall at an oblique angle which caused the aircraft to not achieve the maximum penatation of a 90 degree impact. The aircraft flew level, the wings were not banking, and the nose was not up or down. The ANGLE which the aircraft impacted the wall actually caused MORE damage than if it had hit at a 90 degree angle. (2) He didn't land on the lawn. As I've repeatedly said ground effect makes an air cushion supporting nap of the earth lift the closer the fuselage and wings get to the ground. Can you repeat that in English? The aircraft didn't PHYSICALLY TOUCH down on the lawn, his wheels weren't down, but IF the wheels were down the aircraft would have landed. As far as ground effect, it's physically impossible for a large heavy aircraft with relatively low wing-loading, such as a 757, to fly lower than 60 feet off the ground at speeds of 400+ mph. The alleged hijacker whose instuctors said "could not fly at all", allegedly flew the aircraft down to 20 FEET off the Pentagon lawn at a speed of 530 MPH. The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training (3) The wings were oscillating right up to final impact, clipping poles and brushing aside construction equipment, and ingesting a part of a luminary into the engine. This is not an under control approach or crash. Post your source. For the aircraft to have impacted as it did, it had to fly with its wings straight and its nose level, especially being there was no damage to the Pentagon lawn. If it had touched the ground with its wings, not only would the wing have broken off and exploded, it would have left obvious skid marks. There were none, and the wing didn't blow up on the lawn. As far as the lightposts, the officers who first responded to the scene report those lightposts were still standing when they got there, but OTHER light poles were knocked down from the aircraft THEY saw hit the Pentagon, which flew north of the ALLEGED flight path taken according to the official story, which placed it over the poles YOU claim were knocked down. (4) The entire secion hit did minimum damage to American interests. The hit was not in a place doing any substantial damage to the US. This is because he was trying to salvage a hit on the building at all instead of hitting a high value section. The aircraft went OUT OF ITS WAY to avoid the high value section of the Pentagon, performing a precision manuever to direct it to the side it actually hit. Pretty thoughtful of that terrorist, wasn't it...
False. The starboard wing got mostly ground against the building exterior wall because it ran approximately parallel to it, while the port wing got folded back into the fuselage because it was inserted into a tight space with little force available to push the width of that space wider. No. In landing especially ground landings the power must be cut down drastically. Had the wheels been lowered the plane would have repeatedly bounced anywhere from a few feet to over 100. Since Hanjour had aleady obtained a commercial pilot certificate two years earlier, the statement he could not fly at all is an exaggeration glommed onto by the Half Truther usual suspects, who can't be bothered to research facts, because that will take time away from their circlejerk gaybanter with each other.
Of course the comments of his flight instructor that he couldn't fly is of course an insignificant datum. Keep those fingernails dug in that Official Fairy Tale about the magic Arabs, magick Jet fuel, and buildings that miraculously fall into their own footprint 3 at time is tough sell since there are so many things about it that are hilarious. Wanna buy a bridge kid?
Hanjour's 1999 FAA commercial pilot certificate trumps the comments of his flight instructor. None of you Half Truthers bothered to find out about that because all you are capable of is parroting whatever k00ksites put out. Clearly Hanjour didn't GAS about the things his flight instructor thought were important. That does not translate into him being unable to do them, just that he couldn't be bothered to do them. Here is a partial list, which will get bigger and bigger as I review my postings, of the issues you've been clouted on in this forum. (1) Two aircraft crashes released gigajoules of kinetic energy into the Twin Tower structures, and within 2 hours both structures collapsed from structural damage,
You love to spam this 4um with the same bullshit, day in and day out, don't you...
You can't rebut any of it, Half Truther...So you go to Plan B, circlejerk gaybanter with your Twisters.
In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said. When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997," Chilton said.
Wrong pilot license, wrong aircraft, wrong school, wrong dates. Hanjour got an FAA commercial pilot license, not private pilot license, the license was from a different school than you cite, it was for a passenger aircraft and not a single engine Cessna 172, and it was during a different time period than you mention. On your attempts to introduce facts you're 0 for 4. When you claim Hanjour never got any license and someone entered phony information into a computer, 0 for 5. Anything else you want to fuck up, Half Truther, before I clout you on yet another misrepresented narrative?
So I'm supposed to believe YOU, the forum liar, rather than the news reports that reported the facts concerning Hanjour's background, eh? Post the following information concerning Hanjour's commercial license; You see genius, you can't walk into an FAA office and tell them you want a commericial license, have them say ok, here ya go. You HAVE to FIRST take lessons for a SINGLE-ENGINE PRIVATE license, solo, acquire flight hours, THEN take a test with an FAA examiner, similar to driver's road test, where every aspect of a pilot's abilities are scrutinized, THEN if successful a PRIVATE SINGLE ENGINE license is issued. THEN, in order to fly MULTI-ENGINE planes, you need to take lessons for that and go through a similar process. THEN, a pilot would need to fly a simulator and take lessons for IFR flight, ie. flying with instruments only, and be examined for that, and be issued a IFR certificate. THEN, a pilot would need to log many hours of time IFR, and take lessons for a COMMERCIAL license, THEN be examined by the FAA for that. So go ahead and provide that information concerning his flight training and FAA certifications.
THEN, in order to fly MULTI-ENGINE planes, you need to take lessons for that and go through a similar process. THEN, a pilot would need to fly a simulator and take lessons for IFR flight, ie. flying with instruments only, and be examined for that, and be issued a IFR certificate. THEN, a pilot would need to log many hours of time IFR, and take lessons for a COMMERCIAL license, THEN be examined by the FAA for that. Bull$hit. You can if you wish go directly into commercial aircraft training school. There is no mandatory connection between private single engine and commercial ATP licensing. That is exactly what Hanjour did.
LIAR. You REALLY should look this stuff up before you are caught in some serious lies, like this one. From ADF Airways This FAA certificate allows you to fly any aircraft for compensation or hire. The requirements are:
This FAA certificate allows you to fly any aircraft for compensation or hire. The requirements are: •You must be a private pilot. The requirements may have changed. However if you want to confirm that Hanjour had both a private license, and a commercial pilot license, totally undercutting your false claims "he couldn't fly," fine with me! Enjoy debunking yourself!!!!!
This FAA certificate allows you to fly any aircraft for compensation or hire. The requirements are: •You must be a private pilot. The requirements may have changed. However if you want to confirm that Hanjour had both a private license, and a commercial pilot license, totally undercutting your false claims "he couldn't fly," fine with me! Enjoy debunking yourself!!!!! So, is it your argument that ALL pilots are of equivalent skill? Is it your argument that it is impossible that he got it fraudulently? Despite your extensive time backslapping yourself and giving yourself "high 5's" you have not addressed the fundamental question regarding Hanjour's piloting? How skilled was he? Did he have experience the the type of aircraft he allegedly flew? You have produced which supports his having the knowledge and skills to fly this type of aircraft. My father had a commercial license and was a damn good pilot, but I guarantee you that he would not set down behind the controls of a new type of aircraft without a good many hours of check-out and training on the new plane. Airline pilots are not interchangeable, except for a very few very senior pilots, between aircraft types. Ever meet someone with a Phd. who was a complete boob? I have, and there are plenty of them out there. I have had people work for me who, on paper, were better educated, but they could not do my job. Paper proves nothing other than someone has passed the minimum requirements for something, and showing a piece of paper is not even a guarantee because paper can be forged or bought from a crooked employee. There have been instances where someone has actually performed as a Surgeon without even having gone to medical school (look up "The Great Impostor"). John Malloy who wrote "Dress For Success" wrote another book not quite as well known titled "Live For Success". One of the things he points out in his book is that there are some TOP Executives who do not have the education and certificates their resumes say they have. He commented that in fact some were so highly placed that he dare not say who (although a lot of the info was gathered under a bonded secrecy agreement). Paper proves nothing, the ability to actually do the job is everything. Stanley Ovshinsky is a High School graduate only, and yet there are probably not 5 men on the planet who know more about Solid State Physics than the man who invented the Amorphous Thin Film Solar Panel. By all credible accounts and testimony from people who actually knew him, and were qualified to judge, Hanjour was incompetent as a pilot and to such a degree that he was turned down for rental of a single engine Cessna. And you want us to believe, on the strength of a possibly forged or bought Pilot's Certificate (for which you can show no background or training to merit), that he could fly a 757 the way the Red Baron flew a Fokker Triplane. Get real.
You are BUSTED! I provided the detail @post#572 ... Hanjour was (in fact FAA certified) .....
You've been BUSTED so many times over the past several threads on this topic that I've lost count. It's apparent that you ARE just another shill here buck. I thought you were just an eccentric poster here who liked to mess with people, acting as a troll more often than not, just to rile people up, where you'd sit back and enjoy the show. Perhaps you're a "sleeper", who knows. What's obvious though is whenever any hard evidence is brought to light, you've been proven wrong, yet you still cling to your false beliefs as if they were part of your religion. Go ahead and find a copy of Hanjour's commercial pilot's license. See if you can find the location and date he took his FAA exam, and if the FAA examiner's name is on that certificate.
You can't explain documented testimony, mathematics and physics.... but you can cite conspiracy websites..... Honestly, be a man about it and confess that you are BUSTED ... with AG's and my researched documentation about all of your silly conspiracies.... you lose again.
What documentation? Your gif file that incorrectly showed Flight 77 turning around over West Virginia, where the NTSB is on record and has reported that it flew over Ohio THEN turned around? Provide the following documentation;
1.Name of Hanjour's commercial flight school, and the name of his instructor 2.Actual copy of Hanjour's commercial pilot's license 3.Location and date of Hanjour's FAA commericial pilot's exam 4.Name of the FAA examiner who administered the exam You've been busted claiming Hanjour did not have any pilot licenses and couldn't fly anything. Now you're trying to cover up by demanding proof that he did, once it was shown to you that Hanjour did have a valid commercial pilot license in 1999. You've been provided leads to the sources and links where you can do your own research. I don't do research for Half Truthers. You either need to do your own, or admit you're incapable of it.
That much is obvious. It's ALSO obvious there IS no official record of Hanjour ever having a valid commercial pilot's license. That he had a piece of paper stating he did, according to reports, is NOT evidence that he did actually have one.
A staff of owner/operators of a flight school, whose livelihood depends on making sure aircraft renters have valid FAA certification, trumps your anonymous internet k00kblather.
Oh so all of his other instructors were wrong, and only the one who somewhat supports YOUR view is the fountain of truth. What a jackass you are. Again, find a copy of the FAA commercial license and put this matter to rest.
he'll do that as quickly as he'll come up with the videos showing what really happened at the pentagon.
Here is a link PROVING hanjour had a FAA certificate: www.gpoaccess.gov/serials...pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf .. you read it... I am tired of the BS that some of you wantonly spew. No wonder America is all fucked upped. The problem is far beyond just voters ... it is the speculators that don't know SHIT/
Where's the proof? I want to see a copy of the FAA license, and/or information as to what commercial flight school he attended, and the location and date of his FAA exam.
Where's Orly Taitz, Phil Allen Berg, and J. Allen Keyes when you need them? MWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
MWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Where's your answer to my question about why there's no engine-noise in the background of those alleged phone calls from the alleged planes? Where's a valid source for your assertion, and Wikipedia's, that "Among the uncertain parameters was the status of the cockpit door, which showed no sign of having been opened during the hijacking or previous 40 hours, including 11 flights prior to the hijacking.[1]"? Your own Wikipedia reference does indicate that the evidentiary door parameters certainly don't support the hijacking story. Additionally, the rest of the statement, which evidently appears to be a fabrication, indicates as well that you need to remove #4 now from your itemized "not debunked" list. MWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! backatcha.
So you think airlines set up their satellite phones noise filters to capture jet engine sounds instead of voice conversation? And you think somebody speaking quickly and urgently into the telephone about a hijacking and people getting their throats slashed is going to talk sotto voce so as to make sure the person getting called hears jet noise in the background? What a wack question. You can't even read a footnote?
Which aircraft do you allege had "satellite phones" onboard?
Read the evidence and do your own research before demanding proof from people you are disputing because they don't support your CT. Orly Taitz type tactics of demanding evidence without supplying any, are not going to work for Half Truther challenges any better than they worked for Obama Birth Certificate challenges.
In other words, there is no evidence.
There's plenty of evidence. I've posted thousands of words of links and videos while you and your pals are engaging in your snide gaybanter projections. But at some point you have to bring some to get some, especially when you want things repeated you've already been shown, with your only reply being "I don't wanna believe that. The gubmint made it up." Show me your evidence. A single piece of anything showing conclusive controlled demolition evidence. A single person describing how "they" blew up the WTC buildings without leaving any physical traces and zero eye witnesses.
Barry Jennings says you are liar about bombs being in the buildings. He was there and heard them.
Barry Jennings said no such thing, Half Truther, but as long as you want to quote him, have him produce the slightest fragment of explosive residue, igniters, det cord, or timing devices.
Kind of hard to do since the nice people you work for knocked him off. Of course you know that already. So like I said before, enjoy your short time on Earth, it is all you got, hell awaits. You will see Barry in Heaven then.
Hell is for liars, Half Truther. I've been debunking your Half Truther lies one after the other for the last month plus. You will get there and I won't.
Yep, that it why it is waiting for you.
Yep, that it why it is waiting for you. Another lie, circlejerk. Now tell me if Hajour had a pilot license as of April 15, 1999.
I don't know or care about CIA agents and their documents. Let's talk about who benefited the most from 9/11. Do you know what country benefited the most? Do you know who shorted the airline stock of the airlines that allegedly struck the twin towers? You say you don't know? Let me give you a hint, it wasn't Iraq and it wasn't Afghanistan. And the shorters weren't Muslim.
You don't know or care about anything except stale k00kshit because you're a swillsucking anaerobe who can only consume something stagnant that nothing else will ingest. More already debunked k00kshit. All claims of irregular pre-911 trading were investigated by hundreds of accountants, FBI agents, securities researchers, and computer specialists for a many months. They were all found - without exception - to be legitimate trades with no conceivable connection to al Qaeda. One purchase of airline puts was part of a hedging strategy connected with a corresponding long position in another airline company stock. A second was based on technical analysis and FAXED to newsline subscribers the Sunday before 911. Both securities analysts Jon Najarian and Phil Erlanger who originally raised the flag about possible irregular trades later researched them and found the explanations legitimate. They are on record as saying there was no invalid trading did in fact happen upon further research. The claims of unsusual call option in Rayetheon are idiotic because of the small amount that would have been realized even if they were totally bought by people with advance knowledge. A few hundred call options and a gain in stock of $7 per share would gain about $160,000 in profits. A single "seat" which allows you to bid and trade on the floor costs $2.3+ million per year. $100,000 is chump change for the power traders on the exchanges. They make or lose tens of millions in a single deal. Only losers like you think $100,000 is a big deal. On every single stock and option market anywhere in the world, every single trade is recorded and the recipients known. Nobody has been charged anywhere in the world with irregular 911 trading.
All claims of irregular pre-911 trading were investigated by hundreds of accountants, FBI agents, securities researchers, and computer specialists for a many months. They were all found - without exception - to be legitimate trades with no conceivable connection to al Qaeda. I don't think Al-CIAda is who they should have been looking at. BTW, do you have any links to any reports that state beyond a shadow of a doubt there wasn't any irregularities? Both securities analysts Jon Najarian and Phil Erlanger who originally raised the flag about possible irregular trades later researched them and found the explanations legitimate. They are on record as saying there was no invalid trading did in fact happen upon further research. Yeah, I bet they were both "made an offer they couldn't refuse"...
Why don't you start performing your own research? So far, you have called AGAviator a "liar" many times. And not one shred of PROOF ... is that because you don't know how to use a search engine?
When he's lied, yes, I've called him a liar. BTW, I'm still waiting to find out if this Hanjoor character is the same HanJOUR who is claimed to have flown Flight 77.
But he hasn't lied. You have lied by calling AG a liar. Yes he is.
Everyplace I've said he's lied, he's lied. Everyplace I've said YOU'VE lied, you've lied. BTW, here's a link if you really want to find out about good ole Hani... Al Qaeda’s Top Gun : Willful Deception by the 9/11 Commission
Everyplace I've said YOU'VE lied, you've lied. But only YOU have lied... topic after topic, thread after thread. You have wasted a lot time playing around about Hanjour's certification, particularly on this thread as it is about the demolition theory of the WTC. You have repeatedly lied to this thread by even pursing Hanjour's background. After all your games, there is no PROOF, evidence, witnesses .... ANYTHING about the demolition theory you cling on to.
The proof concerning Hanjour (Hanjoor) is posted HERE buttercup, try joining the discussion, if you have anything to say... And if you have anything to say concerning controlled demolition, try doing it HERE...
And if you have anything to say concerning controlled demolition, try doing it HERE... Fuck you, Half Truther. You are pwned!!!!
You are pwned!!!! No FUCK YOU Full Liar, YOU are "pwned".
No FUCK YOU Full Liar, YOU are "pwned". Show me Hanjour's signed and dated pilot license, Two00fer. MUAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Doesn't matter, he STILL could barely do anything other than fly straight once up in the air, according to his instructors. His instructors ALSO reported him to the FAA since they didn't feel his license was valid, since he was so inept as a "pilot" and lacked the most basic skills in order to fly an airplane.
You've already demonstrated that nothing matters to a k00kswiller except stale already debunked detritus that nobody outside of a Six Percenter minority will get anywhere near to.
More than 6% think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Matter of fact, I think you are in the minority here, retards still are last time I checked.
A 2006 Zogby poll actually put the number who believe "The USG did it" at 4.2%. I am being generous when I call you Six Percenters.
Retard, everyone that sees WTC come down knows it was a controlled demolition if they have even a average IQ. You obviously don't, but it is nice that they let you play at the computer at your retard institution.
Any FACTS called mathematics and physics or mechanical stress analysis? You should be ashamed of your own posts.
You ignore any facts and evidence presented, whether it utilizes physics and math, or whether it's testimony from actual experts and witnesses. You cling to your religious belief that 19 "angry ragheads did 911", no matter HOW much proof and evidence there is which conflicts with that faith based belief. In fact, 7 or more of them are still alive, so guess what, it wasn't THOSE 7 or so that "did it".
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!!!! Speaking of ***religious beliefs***** Professor Steven Jones Clings to His Belief That Jesus Visited the Aboriginal Americans by Steven E. Jones The Book of Mormon makes the bold statement that Jesus Christ, shortly following His resurrection, visited people in the New World Several years ago, an idea popped into my head: Would people in the New World who also saw Jesus Christ leave memorials of this supernal experience by showing marked hands of Deity in their artwork? So I began a search with the following hypothesis-to be tested: Ancient artwork portraying a deity with deliberate markings on his hands will be found somewhere in the Americas. A crazy idea, maybe - but wait till you see the artwork of the ancient Maya!"
Can you find a BYU professor who doesn't work on research to make the Book of Mormon legit? It's a prerequisite for hire you know. I read the paper in it's entirety.......nothing too kooky, simply comparing some Myan artifacts to information in the Book of Mormom. Again, this doesn't in anyway discredit his work in physics. You do realize that Newton was an excellent student of astrology, the Emerald Tablets and other "occult" works. Do you call Newton a kook too? Oh, that's right, Newton's theories don't jive with your 911 goobermint fairy tale, so he must be a kook.
It's not the same person abraxas, AGAviator fabricated it. He cut and pasted Dr. Stephen Jones background and pasted as the Reverend Stephen Jones background. The Reverend Jones is NOT a physicist, and only went to school for Theology.
Google the article name and it comes right up in pdf. I provided the link. It's from BYU. It's not a peer reviewed paper. It's more of a power point presentation than a paper. Profs at BYU do all sorts of side research on such topics. Jones' interests also extend to archaeometry, solar energy, and, like many professors at BYU, archaeology and the Book of Mormon. For example, he has sought radiocarbon dating evidence of the existence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas, and has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans as supporting his faith's belief that Jesus Christ visited America. (Wiki)
Profs at BYU do all sorts of side research on such topics. Ok, I did find it. Thought perhaps AG modified wiki to suit his purpose, but no, I did in fact find the PDF. So I admit I was wrong, although it IS highly suspicious that their is ANOTHER Dr. Jones, a reverend, spelt with a PH in Stephen rather than a V as in Dr. Steven Jones the physicist. Odd coincidence, and given AG's honesty, I instantly thought he was up to his old tricks. So ok AGAviator, I'll admit I'm wrong here. Now when are YOU going to admit you're wrong on the things you ARE wrong about?
Don't hold your breath waiting. I've made several posts, noting the article and the error. He ignores them all while he continues churning silly conspiracies about the lot of us and calling me a FUCKWIT. I've noted time and again, when AGABLOWviator is caught in a lie or intentionally spewing disinformation, he checks out for a spell and then returns as if nothing happened a short time later. But, he thinks he so sly that nobody notices.......lol.
The thread is about "911 conspiracy theories challenged." Jerker posted an insult to buck, claiming buck had a religious belief about 19 ragheads. I then posted a factual account of Prof Steven E. Jones's religious belief about Jesus Christ visiting the Mayans, which shows Jones' religious bias and methodology underlying his 911 CT'ers thinking process. The twit couldn't see the releance of what I posted, and I then had to explain to the twit how the two religious belief allegations had something in common. The response to this post was the usual cacaphony of personal attacks and lies. The lies have been disproven and the personal attacks therefore are the attacks of proven liars. None of you has provided any objective proof on anything at any time. All you do is make arm-waving conclusions and zero backup. I don't miss anything in my absences. You're all brain dead repeating the same old nostrums for the past 8 1/2 years.
I then posted The twit The response to this post All you do You're all brain dead That post is like reading a note taken from a middle school girl. Yawn.......diversion to bitching duly noted.
The thread is about "911 conspiracy theories challenged." You haven't done too well on any of those. Being debunked on
Who are you trying to fool? Er, let's see who is it calling others FUCKWIT, FUCKTARD, stupid fuck.....yada, yada, yada. What a hypocrite you are!! Like I said, your diversion to bitching and insults are duly noted. Now, put the stones down, no need tossing them at others from your glass house. Epic fail on what you deem a "clouting" on 1-15......more delusions of adequacy.
So let's see where the stink bomb throwing on this thread started, shall we? #44. To: Rotara (#42) #108. To: buckeroo (#104) #117. To: AGAviator (#116) #119. To: abraxas, AGAviator (#117) #127. To: AGAviator (#126) #146. To: AGAviator (#142) #148. To: abraxas (#146) #157. To: buckeroo (#154) ... As for you personally, Circle Jerk Fag Hag, you have long ago forefeited any privileges being female by your own disrespect for others. Your role as a group cheerleader for a group of cowardly jerkoffs who hide behind banning filters, then take sneak peeks by looking at replies, makes you someone deserving of the type of rants Mel Gibson serves up to Oksana. Fuck you in your a$$, hypocritical Circle Jerk Fag Hag.
As for you personally, Circle Jerk Fag Hag, you have long ago forefeited any privileges being female by your own disrespect for others. Your role as a group cheerleader for a group of cowardly jerkoffs who hide behind banning filters, then take sneak peeks by looking at replies, makes you someone deserving of the type of rants Mel Gibson serves up to Oksana. Fuck you in your a$$, hypocritical Circle Jerk Fag Hag. Wow, that's showing some real class there buttwipe. You're a real tough guy on the Internet aren't you. I bet you crap your pants when you speak to women in real life...
Ahhh.. telling the site hostess that you got your ass kicked? Poor widdle puppy.....
Er, no retard, I was bringing it to christine's attention that your pal AGAviator is saying some pretty nasty things to a woman on this thread, KNOWING that she's a woman, and going over the top with his graphic sexual fantasies directed towards her. How not surprising you support his behavior.
How not surprising you support his behavior. Hey dickwad ... you don't know anything... but silly BS.... you have caused the issues of being offensive yourself. The thread PROVES IT, FUCKINGLIAR.
Oh yes buckie, I'M the one being offensive here, not you. Oh no, not you or your precious little AGAviator.
Finally, the truth!
#1203. To: buckeroo (#1201)
Never an opportunity goes by to take things out of context, where you take a sarcastic remark and repost it as if that is ALL I said. You really ARE a little weasle, aren't you buckwheat.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHis calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.
#246. To: FormerLurker (#237)
Actually a free fall from the 110th floor would have taken 9.22 seconds.
#247. To: buckeroo (#246)
Show me your calculation and/or source material.
#249. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator (#247)
#252. To: buckeroo (#249)
This notion of "free fall" has always been used by the TWOOFERS and it is an incorrect assumption for the top of either of the building for the calculation; it is utter nonsense.
#256. To: AGAviator (#252)
More back pedaling after they themselves use 9.22 seconds as evidenced on Rosie's video clip.
#260. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#256)
You don't judge collapse time for only PART of the building collapsing, you INCLUDE the ENTIRE building from the very top.
#263. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#260)
You're the people bantering around the "9.22 seconds," "physical impossibility" phrases.
#309. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#263)
(Edited)
Yep, the building SHOULD NOT HAVE collapsed as if it were falling through a vacuum, yet buck's expert "calculated" precisely that.
#316. To: AGAviator (#309)
If a building doesn't fall at close to free fall speeds, its fall has not been set up by controlled demolition. Fifeeen seconds vs. nine seconds for a collapse is not even close to free fall speeds. The controlled demolition theory is debunked by actual and observed free fall speeds indicating lack of thorough setup for a building collapse many times larger than the largest recorded CD.
#318. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator (#316)
All the demolition has to do is START the collapse
#321. To: buckeroo (#318)
But a demolition did not start the collapses. The jet crashes did.
#323. To: FormerLurker (#321)
The buildings did NOT start to fall down when they were hit.
They did NOT start to fall till the precise time they collapsed.
#328. To: buckeroo (#323)
Not much time... it was amazing they stood for so long ... but it took time for the central structure to lose stress capability that caused the later crush down phase.
#331. To: FormerLurker (#328)
what's amazing is that they fell at all
#337. To: buckeroo (#331)
no building is designed to withstand that kind of impact.
#341. To: abraxas (#337)
Also the architect for those buildings claims they were indeed made to endure the impact of a 747.
#346. To: buckeroo (#341)
The twins were designed for a 707 as in a FOG with a velocity well below 550mi/hr. (For you, that means much less inertial force as what occurred on 9/11 by the relative impacts caused by terrorist crashes)
#355. To: James Deffenbach, buckeroo (#346)
#358. To: AGAviator (#355)
You lie, you lose.
#377. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#358)
Well then, you've lost long ago
(1) Two aircraft crashes released gigajoules of kinetic energy into the Twin Tower structures, and within 2 hours both structures collapsed from structural damage,
That's just a partial list of the issues about which you and your cotiere have been batted on from one end of the forum to another. There are plenty of others. Your attempts to evade and make things personal is noted, as well as noted as being unsuccessful.
(2) A fireman is recorded on video saying a third WTC Building, WTC7, will be going down because the building is losing its structural stability from crash damage and uncontrolled fires,
(3) Over 30 calls from hijacked aircraft were logged including several by flight attendants giving seat numbers and descriptions of hijackers,
(4) The false statement that Flight 77's cabin door was not opened has been demonstrated to be a lie, as there is no evidence about any cabin door operation of that aircraft either during or before the September 11 flight,
(5) The lauded "peer review publication" of Tw00ferk00ks Steven Jones and Niels Harrit have been shown to be pay-to- publish articles for which $800 was given to a Dhubai publishing mill, with zero other peer reviewed articles
(6) The phrase "pull" as used by the demolition industry means "pull down with cables," and as used by firefighters means "pull back from site,"
(7) Flight 77 impacted a recently-renovated portion of the Pentagon which was not fully occupied and still had construction equipment in place, and
(8) It's a physical impossibliity for a structure to both be flexible enough to absorb gigajoules of energy, move away from vertical centerline, return to vertical centerline on its own, then be rigid enough to provide a fixed platform for a rotating and falling top section to collapse outside the building footprint and
(9) The actual free fall times of the WTC towers have been conclusively shown as 15+ seconds for 1 tower and 22+ seconds for the other, an order of magnitude above the claimed "free fall time" of 9.22 seconds which is supposed to be evidence of a controlled demolition
#431. To: AGAviator (#377)
(7) Flight 77 impacted a recently-renovated portion of the Pentagon which was not fully occupied and still had construction equipment in place
#450. To: FormerLurker (#431)
(Edited)
#452. To: James Deffenbach, buckeroo (#450)
And it is certain that a man who couldn't fly a Cessna could not fly what they claimed hit the Pentagon.
#454. To: AGAviator, abraxas, James Deffenbach, buckeroo (#452)
#459. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#454)
(Edited)
Hanjour gained his FAA commercial pilot certificate in April 1999,
but was unable to get a job as a pilot after he returned to his native Saudi Arabia, and told his family he was heading to the United Arab Emirates to find work. He took an international flight out of New York on April 28, but it is not known where he went. Within two weeks however, bank withdrawals were again made in Arizona, indicating he had returned.
#461. To: AGAviator (#459)
#485. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#461)
(Edited)
He LANDED a 757 on the Pentagon lawn at 530 mph, short of putting down his wheels, and FLEW IT STRAIGHT INTO THE WALL. Of course such a feat is virtually IMPOSSIBLE, yet he supposedly did it anyways.
#520. To: AGAviator (#485)
#522. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#520)
The ANGLE which the aircraft impacted the wall actually caused MORE damage than if it had hit at a 90 degree angle.
IF the wheels were down the aircraft would have landed.
As far as ground effect, it's physically impossible for a large heavy aircraft with relatively low wing-loading, such as a 757, to fly lower than 60 feet off the ground at speeds of 400+ mph. The alleged hijacker whose instuctors said "could not fly at all", allegedly flew the aircraft down to 20 FEET off the Pentagon lawn at a speed of 530 MPH.
#523. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker (#522)
Since Hanjour had aleady obtained a commercial pilot certificate two years earlier, the statement he could not fly at all is an exaggeration glommed onto by the Half Truther usual suspects, who can't be bothered to research facts, because that will take time away from their circlejerk gaybanter with each other.
#524. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#523)
(Edited)
Of course the comments of his flight instructor that he couldn't fly is of course an insignificant datum.
Keep those fingernails dug in that Official Fairy Tale
(2) A fireman is recorded on video saying a third WTC Building, WTC7, will be going down because the building is losing its structural stability from crash damage and uncontrolled fires,
(3) Over 30 calls from hijacked aircraft were logged including several by flight attendants giving seat numbers and descriptions of hijackers,
(4) The false statement that Flight 77's cabin door was not opened has been demonstrated to be a lie, as there is no evidence about any cabin door operation of that aircraft either during or before the September 11 flight,
(5) The lauded "peer review publication" of Tw00ferk00ks Steven Jones and Niels Harrit have been shown to be pay-to- publish articles for which $800 was given to a Dhubai publishing mill, with zero other peer reviewed articles
(6) The phrase "pull" as used by the demolition industry means "pull down with cables," and as used by firefighters means "pull back from site,"
(7) Flight 77 impacted a recently-renovated portion of the Pentagon which was not fully occupied and still had construction equipment in place, and
(8) It's a physical impossibility for a structure to both be flexible enough to absorb gigajoules of energy, move away from vertical centerline, return to vertical centerline on its own, then be rigid enough to provide a fixed platform for a rotating and falling top section to collapse outside the building footprint
(9) The actual free fall times of the WTC towers have been conclusively shown as 15+ seconds for 1 tower and 22+ seconds for the other, an order of magnitude above the claimed "free fall time" of 9.22 seconds which is supposed to be evidence of a controlled demolition
(10) Claimed molten steel evidence of thermite flowing from 80th floors is actually aluminum and trash cooling on way down and not hot enough to remain melted as it falls a few hundred feet
#526. To: AGAviator (#524)
#534. To: FormerLurker (#526)
You love to spam this 4um with the same bullshit
#546. To: AGAviator (#534)
#548. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#546)
In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale , Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said.
#553. To: AGAviator (#548)
(Edited)
Hanjour got an FAA commercial pilot license, not private pilot license, the license was from a different school than you cite, it was for a passenger aircraft and not a single engine Cessna 172, and it was during a different time period than you mention.
#564. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#553)
You HAVE to FIRST take lessons for a SINGLE-ENGINE PRIVATE license, solo, acquire flight hours, THEN take a test with an FAA examiner, similar to driver's road test, where every aspect of a pilot's abilities are scrutinized, THEN if successful a PRIVATE SINGLE ENGINE license is issued.
#568. To: AGAviator (#564)
You can if you wish go directly into commercial aircraft training school. There is no mandatory connection between private single engine and commercial ATP licensing.
Requirements for a Commmercial Pilot License
#571. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#568)
Requirements for a Commmercial Pilot License
#587. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, wudidiz, Critter, IRTorqued, abraxas, all (#571)
Requirements for a Commmercial Pilot License
#588. To: Original_Intent (#587)
And you want us to believe, on the strength of a possibly forged or bought Pilot's Certificate (for which you can show no background or training to merit), that he could fly a 757 the way the Red Baron flew a Fokker Triplane. Get real.
#591. To: buckeroo (#588)
You are BUSTED! I provided the detail @post#572 ... Hanjour was (in fact FAA certified) .....
#609. To: FormerLurker (#591)
What's obvious though is whenever any hard evidence is brought to light, you've been proven wrong, yet you still cling to your false beliefs as if they were part of your religion.
#620. To: buckeroo (#609)
with AG's and my researched documentation about all of your silly conspiracies
#655. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#620)
(Edited)
Provide the following documentation;
#660. To: AGAviator (#655)
I don't do research
#733. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#660)
It's ALSO obvious there IS no official record of Hanjour ever having a valid commercial pilot's license. That he had a piece of paper stating he did, according to reports, is NOT evidence that he did actually have one.
#737. To: AGAviator (#733)
A staff of owner/operators of a flight school, whose livelihood depends on making sure aircraft renters have valid FAA certification, trumps your anonymous internet k00kblather.
#826. To: FormerLurker (#737)
Again, find a copy of the FAA commercial license and put this matter to rest.
#828. To: IRTorqued (#826)
#836. To: buckeroo (#828)
Here is a link PROVING hanjour had a FAA certificate: www.gpoaccess.gov/serials...pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf .. you read it... I am tired of the BS that some of you wantonly spew.
#841. To: buckeroo, FormerLurker, (#836)
Where's the proof? I want to see a copy of the FAA license, and/or information as to what commercial flight
#851. To: AGAviator (#841)
(Edited)
Where's Orly Taitz, Phil Allen Berg, and J. Allen Keyes when you need them?
#857. To: GreyLmist, buckeroo (#851)
Where's your answer to my question about why there's no engine-noise in the background of those alleged phone calls from the alleged planes?
Where's a valid source for your assertion, and Wikipedia's, that "Among the uncertain parameters was the status of the cockpit door, which showed no sign of having been opened during the hijacking or previous 40 hours, including 11 flights prior to the hijacking.[1]"?
Right Here
#858. To: AGAviator, GreyLmist (#857)
So you think airlines set up their satellite phones noise filters to capture jet engine sounds instead of voice conversation?
#861. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#858)
Which aircraft do you allege had "satellite phones" onboard?
#863. To: AGAviator (#861)
Read the evidence and do your own research before demanding proof from people you are disputing because they don't support your CT.
#864. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#863)
In other words, there is no evidence.
#867. To: AGAviator (#864)
I've posted thousands of words of links and videos while you and your pals are engaging in your snide gaybanter projections.
#871. To: RickyJ, buckeroo (#867)
Barry Jennings says you are liar about bombs being in the buildings.
#910. To: AGAviator (#871)
have him produce the slightest fragment of explosive residue, igniters, det cord, or timing devices.
#916. To: RickyJ (#910)
hell awaits.
#917. To: AGAviator (#916)
Hell is for liars,
#918. To: RickyJ (#917)
(Edited)
Hell is for liars,
#921. To: AGAviator (#918)
Now tell me if Hajour had a pilot license as of April 15, 1999.
#927. To: RickyJ, buckeroo (#921)
(Edited)
I don't know or care about CIA agents and their documents.
Do you know who shorted the airline stock of the airlines that allegedly struck the twin towers? You say you don't know? Let me give you a hint, it wasn't Iraq and it wasn't Afghanistan. And the shorters weren't Muslim.
#929. To: AGAviator, RickyJ (#927)
#934. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator, ALL (#929)
any reports that state beyond a shadow of a doubt there wasn't any irregularities?
#935. To: buckeroo (#934)
So far, you have called AGAviator a "liar" many times.
#936. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator, ALL (#935)
When he's lied, yes, I've called him a liar.
BTW, I'm still waiting to find out if this Hanjoor character is the same HanJOUR who is claimed to have flown Flight 77.
#937. To: buckeroo, AGAviator, ALL (#936)
But he hasn't lied. You have lied by calling AG a liar.
#938. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator, ALL (#937)
Everyplace I've said he's lied, he's lied.
#939. To: buckeroo, AGAviator, ALL (#938)
You have repeatedly lied to this thread by even pursing Hanjour's background. After all your games, there is no PROOF, evidence, witnesses .... ANYTHING about the demolition theory you cling on to.
#944. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#939)
The proof concerning Hanjour (Hanjoor) is posted HERE buttercup, try joining the discussion, if you have anything to say...
#951. To: AGAviator (#944)
Fuck you, Half Truther.
#957. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#951)
Fuck you, Half Truther. You are pwned!!!!
#958. To: AGAviator, buckeroo, turtle (#957)
Show me Hanjour's signed and dated pilot license, Two00fer.
#962. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#958)
(Edited)
So what
Doesn't matter,
#964. To: AGAviator (#962)
(Edited)
#969. To: RickyJ, buckeroo, turtle (#964)
(Edited)
More than 6% think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition
#986. To: AGAviator (#969)
(Edited)
#990. To: RickyJ (#986)
Retard, everyone that sees WTC come down knows it was a controlled demolition if they have even a average IQ.
#998. To: buckeroo (#990)
Any FACTS called mathematics and physics or mechanical stress analysis?
#1039. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#998)
You cling to your religious belief that 19 "angry ragheads did 911"
Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America
#1069. To: AGAviator (#1039)
#1072. To: abraxas (#1069)
Can you find a BYU professor who doesn't work on research to make the Book of Mormon legit?
#1078. To: FormerLurker (#1072)
#1080. To: abraxas, AGAviator, buckeroo, RickyJ, ALL (#1078)
Google the article name and it comes right up in pdf. I provided the link. It's from BYU. It's not a peer reviewed paper. It's more of a power point presentation than a paper.
#1083. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator, buckeroo, RickyJ, ALL (#1080)
So ok AGAviator, I'll admit I'm wrong here. Now when are YOU going to admit you're wrong on the things you ARE wrong about?
#1088. To: abraxas, buckeroo (#1083)
I've made several posts, noting the article and the error. He ignores them all while he continues churning silly conspiracies about the lot of us and calling me a FUCKWIT.
He checks out for a spell and then returns as if nothing happened a short time later
#1090. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#1088)
Jerker posted an insult
#1096. To: abraxas, buckeroo (#1090)
.......diversion to bitching duly noted.
(1) The 9.22 freefall time,
Yeah, if I got clouted on these issues and others I'd try to make it personal too.
(2)The AA cabin door not opening claims,
(3) Claims that Hajour couldn't fly and never had a license,
(4) Denials that Prof. Steven E. Jones authored "Christ Visited the Mayans,"
(5) Claims of "molten steel" which was actually burning aluminum and office fire trash,
(6) The kinetic energy of the WTC airliner crashes being over 1 giagajoule,
(7) Trashing Thomas Eagar without providing any substantive facts on his WTC explanation, his CV, or his patents,
(8) The false claim that structures falling at less than near free fall speeds are still CD's when in fact CD companies spend months setting up buildings to make sure they fall straight down as quickly as possible,
(9) The statement by Controlled Demoliton President Mark Loziaux that it would simply not be possible for any WTC building to be prepped for CD's without being seen,
(9) The back pedaling on a statement by a former CD employee saying he actually does not know what caused the WTC collapses, but he is putting forth scenarios of equipment he believes could have been used,
(10) The easily debunked statements about insider trading pre 911,
(11) The false claim the WTC building was designed to withstand a 600 mph jet crash when in fact it was designed for a 250 knot air space speed the max allowed where it was located,
(12) The idiotic claim that "they" wanted to hit the Pentagon, but only in harmless places - it was all part of the conspiracy to whack New York but not Washington Pentagon chickenhawks,
(13) Over 30 phone calls describing hijackers recorded giving seat numbers and hijacker descriptions,
(14) "Pull" = "pull down with cables" construction, and = "pull back" fire fighters,
(15) Niels Harrit "peer review" = $800 pay to publish Dubai hole in the wall
#1098. To: AGAviator, buckaroo (#1096)
I'd try to make it personal too.
#1177. To: abraxas, buckeroo (#1098)
(Edited)
Er, let's see who is it calling others FUCKWIT, FUCKTARD, stupid fuck.....yada, yada, yada.
#41. To: buckeroo (#39)
From the thread history, it's very clear you "FUCKWITS, FUCKTARDS, and stupid fucks" start the name calling, then snivel and whine when you get repaid in kind.
perfect, asswipe
Rotara posted on 2010-07-17 20:14:03 ET
Lol.......I have a sinister plan to pay for all of that counseling. Draft a ten step plan: How to get onto Buck's Bozo Filter. Many at 4um will open their wallets happily for such a valuable, dare I say priceless, information. They will pay double if the plan applies to AGAviator.
abraxas posted on 2010-07-17 20:20:34 ET
wow and you learned how to use the blink tag too, that must be why they made you a ranking member of the liar movement you are a down right genieass.
IRTorqued posted on 2010-07-18 0:36:32 ET
...
Shit, if you can't even watch the f'n video where the eye witnesses will tell you exactly what you are asking of me, then you are hopeless and you really don't want any answers to the questions you pose.
The witnesses clearly articulate AN EXPLOSION.......watch for yourself or shut your pie hole.
abraxas posted on 2010-07-18 1:14:15 ET
...
Objection your honor! There is no evidence that the accused puts pie in it. (I do so love double entendres.) ;-)
Original_Intent posted on 2010-07-18 1:18:53 ET
...
How can you simply lie like that on a public forum? As if others won't notice that your are blatantly dishonest. What a dork!!
abraxas posted on 2010-07-18 2:48:06 ET
I'm not interested in your dishonesty about the contents of the video. I know what the WITNESSES stated.......only you think you know more about what they witnessed despite being far, far away.
...
YOU, nowhere near the buildings (kissing government ass in another state I suspect), claim that YOU know more about these explosions that frickin' EYE WITNESSES and people who WORKED in the buildings and people who SAVED LIVES on that day. YOU and the government can IGNORE them, but that only discredits your official bullshit story more.
You run along and tell these people who were there that they are full of shit and only YOU know the truth of the matter. I know, not only are you a liar but you are also a coward who wouldn't say word one to them if you had them front and center, but it's real easy to talk shit about what they witnessed from such a distance.
abraxas posted on 2010-07-18 15:53:33 ET
Good post, abraxas.
James Deffenbach posted on 2010-07-18 16:18:59 ET
Photographic evidence and testimony from demo EXPERTS, not Internet bloviators, confirm that.
abraxas posted on 2010-07-18 17:06:12 ET
#1182. To: AGAviator, christine (#1177)
#1186. To: FormerLurker, christine, AGAviator (#1182)
Wow, that's showing some real class there buttwipe. You're a real tough guy on the Internet aren't you. I bet you crap your pants when you speak to women in real life...
#1193. To: buckeroo, AGAviator, christine (#1186)
Ahhh.. telling the site hostess that you got your ass kicked? Poor widdle puppy.....
#1196. To: FormerLurker, christine, AGAviator (#1193)
Er, no retard, I was bringing it to christine's attention that your pal AGAviator is saying some pretty nasty things to a woman on this thread, KNOWING that she's a woman, and going over the top with his graphic sexual fantasies directed towards her.
#1199. To: buckeroo, AGAviator, ALL (#1196)
Hey dickwad ... you don't know anything... but silly BS.... you have caused the issues of being offensive yourself. The thread PROVES IT, FUCKINGLIAR.
#1201. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator (#1199)
I'M the one being offensive here, not you.
Replies to Comment # 1201. Finally, the truth!
End Trace Mode for Comment # 1201.