Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that
there
was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
clear skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham

At 30,000 feet it does

No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to
be legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.

Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do
know is what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified
to fly large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.

Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )

http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/

Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an
instrument rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large
aircraft ?

Graham






Thanks Graham, I bookmarked that link. Will take a look later on

Dan wrote in news:GeZLf.27395$Ug4.14004@dukeread12:

Pooh Bear wrote:

TRUTH wrote:

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
clear skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham
At 30,000 feet it does
No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to
be legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.
Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do
know is what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified
to fly large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.

Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )

http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/

Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an
instrument rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large
aircraft ?

Graham



He won't because the obvious has eluded him all along assuming he's
ever flown in a commercial airliner. At 30 kilofeet on a clear day you
can look down from your passenger seat and recognize landmarks. It
would disturb him to have to actually admit another flaw in his
"logic."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




oh give it up already!

mrtravel wrote in news:Ap_Lf.35165$Jd.26287
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

TRUTH wrote:
mrtravel wrote in news:lizLf.39501$H71.28236
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West Virginia?

Was the WTC in WV?

The supposed hijacking did not occur near the WTC

When they arrived at WTC, were there clouds?





In NYC, no. It was a beautiful sunny day, calm wind

mrtravel wrote in news:NhcMf.40620$H71.30128
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article ,
mrtravel wrote:


TRUTH wrote:

mrtravel wrote in news:lizLf.39501$H71.28236
:

Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West Virginia?

Was the WTC in WV?

The supposed hijacking did not occur near the WTC

When they arrived at WTC, were there clouds?


No -- the weather was "severe clear" over the entire East Coast of the
US, as I have pointed out earlier.

WE know it was clear.. TRUTH is the one with the head that is cloudy




How bout stopping the childish insults already? I *never* said it was
cloudy above NYC.

mrtravel wrote in
et:

TRUTH wrote:


In that video, he writes with his right hand, when the FBI's website
says he's left handed.
He wears a gold ring, which is forbidden in Islam.

Going to strip shows is forbidden too, correct?
That didn't stop some of the hijackers from going.


That clearly demonstates that those muslims were not religious. Would a
religious muslim terrorist go to a strip bar, and then kill himself for
Allah?



Do you also think Islam is about killing innocent people?


There are different ways of interpreting the Koran. Muslim terrorists
"see it" as justifying murder. But must Muslims are peaceful people

mrtravel wrote in
t:

TRUTH wrote:

Also, WTC 7 housed numerous government agencies. Paper documents,
such as those from ENRON, were destroyed when the building was
"pulled".

Wow, that explains it.
Not only did the government do this in order to invade Iraq, but also
to stop government documents about Bush's Enron involvement from being
discovered. Too bad they forgot the "grassy knoll's" gun is still
stored at WTC 6.

One question. Do you wear your hat with the shiny side out or in?



You have to put everything into context

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Truth,

What I do know is
what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly
large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.


So what about the several tens of people equally qualified that tell
you here that your aeronautical engineer is wrong?



They are going under the assumption that our government couldn't be
invloved in 9/11

The Whole Truth wrote in
:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:52:41 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

Okay. WTC 7 was the only WTC building not in the same physical area as
the other WTC buidlings.

WTC-7 was located 355 feet from the North Tower.


Okay


The leaseholder of WTC 7 had been in posession
of the lease since the building was built in 1987. Six weeks before
9/11 he bought a lease on the entire WTC complex. I don't know the
legality, but this site may help explain:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...6/07/15925.htm

Your point? You know even know if it's relevant but you throw it
out anyway.



WTC 7 needed to be destoyed for legal reasons.




Also, WTC 7 housed numerous government agencies. Paper documents, such
as those from ENRON, were destroyed when the building was "pulled".

Only a moron would blow up an office building they own to destroy
their own
documents instead of simply shredding them. Only a complete idiot
would claim that an agency capable of secretly blowing up a national
landmark and killing 3,000 people are morons.



You are right. And that's why there was much more involved than that.



WTC 7 was a steel framed building and housed the mayor's 13 million
dollar command bunker. It is theorized that this bunker was used to
control the Towers' demolitions (it was dust proof), and therefore
needed to be destroyed for any evidence it may have.

So not only was it the federal government, the city of New York was
involved?
We're talking hundreds of people, if not thousands; to do something
that would have been just as easily accomplished from inside a
portable trailer with a 10 man crew.


Not nessarily the "federal government", or "the city of New York" as a
unit, but individual people from within. I can assure you, the entire NYC
Police Dept and the entire NYC Fire Dept knows that 9/11 was an inside
job. But they are forbidden to discuss it, as per gag orders. The major
has publically stated that he was warned that the South Tower was going
to collapse. This notification came from the OEM. Why did they tell him
and not the firefighters in the buildings? The City of NY tried
desperately to keep the WTC Task Force Interview transcripts private. But
the NY Times sued the City and won (after a year long court battle). The
Times published them, and it is clear that FDNY personnel saw flashes and
heard explosions that they compared to controlled demoltions. See this
page for a collaboration:
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820







Also, the WTC 7 collapse begs the question: would the city construct
the mayor's 13 million dollar command bunker in a building that could
completely collapse from random damage and fires?

There is no such thing as an indestructable building, where should
they have
located it, inside Norad's Chyenne Mountain complex?

Not many people know about WTC 7 because of media silence. Even when
Professor Jones was on MSNBC, the station refused to play the WTC7
video clip he sent them! info on this at www.st911.org

You still haven't offered one shred of evidence as to how the
government knew
in advance that a building not in the same physical area as the
impacts would be hit by large pieces of debris and set on fire for
half a day with the fire unable to be controlled by the NYFD due to 20
inch water main ruptured by falling debris.


It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris. And the only reason those
fires spread in the first place, was because the WTC fire alarm was put
in "test mode" at 6:47 AM on 9/11, effectively disabling it. This
information was furnished by the official NIST report

TRUTH wrote:
"khobar" wrote in
news:IQ_Lf.4565$Sp2.2612@fed1read02:

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
Dan wrote in news:fjXLf.27320$Ug4.323@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Truth,

Man, there is one thing I envy you for: the amount of TIME you
must have at your disposal. A pity you waste it liek this,
though.


at present, I do have an abundance of time
Fired from your job or incarcerated?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




Perhaps I was sent on a mission from God, like Bush...


LONDON GUARDIAN:
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...586978,00.html
Thank you for demonstrating why The Guardian is not a credible news
source.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/abb...on-from-god-re
mark/2005/10/08/1128563027485.html

"Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has denied an account by another
Palestinian official of a meeting with US President George Bush in
which Bush is cited as saying he believed that God told him to go to
war in Afghanistan and Iraq. "

"This report is not true," the Abbas statement said today. "I have
never heard President Bush talking about religion as a reason behind
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush has never mentioned
that in front of me on any occasion and specifically not during my
visit in 2003."

Try again.

Paul Nixon







Everyone knows Bush is a born again christian. Besides this was also
covered on CNN. Bush has also said that he speaks to God

Anyone who prays speaks to God, genius.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:GeZLf.27395$Ug4.14004@dukeread12:

Pooh Bear wrote:
TRUTH wrote:

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
clear skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham
At 30,000 feet it does
No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to
be legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.
Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do
know is what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified
to fly large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.
Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )

http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/

Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an
instrument rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large
aircraft ?

Graham


He won't because the obvious has eluded him all along assuming he's
ever flown in a commercial airliner. At 30 kilofeet on a clear day you
can look down from your passenger seat and recognize landmarks. It
would disturb him to have to actually admit another flaw in his
"logic."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




oh give it up already!

You can't see the ground from an airliner on a clear day like the
rest of us? Why not?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired