Not sure. Given it's in the public domain I'd expect a thorough debunking from one of the apologist sites if it wasn't accurate.
I don't see why you'd assume the person making the analysis is assuming anything either. You'd need to have a certain level of expertise to understand that data and this person certainly comes accross as possessing a considerable level of knowledge. It also seems to me FLT DECK DOOR would most likely log the status of the flight deck door. Not sure what else it would be providing data for.
Like you I can't find anything definitive, but I don't see that as a reason to dismiss it.
No, I mean the two newspaper reports and multiple eyewitnesses who weren't even interviewed by the 9/11 commission.
You guys still refuse to address the circumstantial evidence surrounding Bush and Cheney's actions. Until you do this you're as closed minded as you're accusing Harry of being.
The common theme here amongst you guys is automatic dismissal of (and a substantial dose of derision towards) anything that questions the official narrative. You may dispute that but it's blatantly obvious.
That's open to interpretation. I believe I've presented plenty to question the official narrative, some of which points quite clearly at foreknowledge within the US administraton. You generally refuse to discuss most of these points so it seems a bit rich to write them off when you won't even acknowledge them.
No, they're possibly disingenuous because they're ambiguous. I see only two expert opinions amongst those quotes and neither of them address the points my experienced pilots specifically raised concerns about.
Look at Captain Bull's quotes. He says it's not difficult to "just keep the nose down and push like the devil" but this is far from an accurate description of the manouvres accoplished by whoever was piloting AA77.
George Williams says the Pentagon is a big target (the newly renovated section, improved to protect against terrorist attack, the pilot of AA77 seemed to be hellbent to strike wasn't a very big target at all) and he doesn't see any merit in these arguments. What I'd like to know is which arguments he's addressing in particular and what his reasoning is.
I'll disregard the rest of that quote because I agree that it seems far fetched that a remote controlled F-16 hit the pentagon.
The second quote has a long analysis which I assume comes fromt the author of the blog you linked it to. From the surface it appears he isn't a pilot or an expert in the flying of Being 757's. To back up his assertions he quotes UAL pilot Michael who says "They'd done their homework and they had what they needed, ... Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness." Again, no suggestion of who he is referencing specifically (flying the route taken by AA77 took a lot more skill than those taken by AA11 and UAL175) and utterly contradicted by the expert opinion of pilots and air traffic controllers presented on the page I referenced. Suffice to say I'd like to see the full transcript of that interview. Similar problems exist with the testimony of Hertz and d'Eon.
Your last quote is legitimate. Sorry, I clicked the wrong link looking for it last time. He doesn't actually say why he thinks that the manouvres undertaken by AA77 were within the capabilities of someone who had never before sat at the controls of any Boeing aircraft. Certainly a little anaysis would provide more weight to his argument.
If you're being objective I think it's only fair to say the opinions offered by air traffic controllers, pilots with extensive knowledge of Boeing aircraft including 757's and other aviation sources are just as compelling. Possibly even moreso. To emphasise this, I'll post a couple more:
This, from the flight instructor who trained Hanjour:
"My opinion is I don't think it is possible. I have spoken to many captains from the airlines and they say there is no way what the planes did could they have done that (sic). They changed altitude. They changed speed. They changed direction. They had to know about the equipment to do what they had to do and there is no way that could have been done."
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/dekkers.htm
And this, from a pilot who obviously has experience flying 757's:
"Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the 'hijacker's' final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a 'hit'. How these rookies who couldn't fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension."
This discussion on ABC USA telecast on 9/11 is also quite compelling.
I've tried to only focus on the evidence. Yes I have my own thoughts on what may have happened but for the main part I accept I have no way of knowing. Surely you've noticed that my main focus is on supporting the call for proper investigation. For the life of me I can't see why anyone would actively oppose that but you guys certainly have done so quite aggresively.
I also admit my opinion on all aspects of 9/11 is constantly changing and I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact I'd say it's bound to happen if you're open minded. Can't say I've seen you, Tim, KR or snakey admit a single change of heart or noticed any weaking in your collective convinction that the official narrative is factually correct.
does.
The purpose of my questions are to advance discussion or to be educated. I don't use them for deflection as is the usual objection of apologists. Ironically that tactic is in itself a classic form of deflection. You employ this very tactic regularly.
You have a stance based on the 9/11 commission report. This is not fact. Asserting as much is ridiculous given the heads of that commission themselves point out the many problems with the process used to arrive at its completion. The rational troofer is only pointing out evidence that contradicts the OR and reasoning that these contradictions are cause to investigate the events properly. The OR is intrinsicly an attempt to make every detail fit into a preconceived notion of what occured. That much is blatantly obvious.
Finally, surely even you can see how referring to other peoples posts as comedy, trolling, p!ss taking, clueless, paranoid and saying you need to do all our research is an insult to our intelligence. I'm sure you'll just say I'm being precious but I know exactly how you'd respond if I made the same insults towards you. The sad this is this would be a much more enjoyable debate/learning experience if all that was left right out.
As I said, my knowledge on the subject isn't perfect and I'm happy to admit mistakes and will also happily retract a statement I've made if something new to me refutes it convincingly.
Jennings and Hess were eyewitness to events inside WTC7, the collapse of which is the focus of much conjecture. I think their testimony indicates there wee explosions, dust and soot inside WTC7 before either tower collapsed which would certainly support the controlled demolition hypothesis. Their testimony is also somewhat supported by other eyewitnesses who report hearing explosions within WTC7. At the least I think this evidence needs to be properly investigated. Unless there is reason to think otherwise I don't see why you wouldn't view either of these people as reliable witnesses.
