Viewing Single Post From: My thoughts on the hijackers.

Viewing Single Post From: My thoughts on the hijackers.
NK-44	Mar 14 2009, 11:56 AM
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Quote: So, you knew him better than the people unsuccessfully trying for years to teach him how to fly. No, I said he was able to crash a plane. We're not talking about crashing a plane anywhere. We're talking about Hanjour piloting a 757 with a complicated maneuver into a target which was very difficult to hit from the side, since it was not tall (77 feet) and the topography was bumpy. This had nothing to do with just crashing a plane. I provided enough sources in my article proving your notion wrong. He wa not capable to fly a Cessna, he had even problems to drive a car. This is fact, what you're saying is wishful thinking based on your believes introduced into your mind by government authorities which have lied to us many times in the past years. Quote: Sorry, I read your "5 foot 7" as 5 foot. What you fail to understand is that it was not me claiming this. I used this figure after I have provided the sources for this claim. I didn't know Hanjour so I have to rely on those sources. The sources I gave were: Washington Post, 10/15/2001: "Pilot Hani Hanjour was skinny and barely over 5 feet tall." 9/11-Commission Report: "the “so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing,” with the majority of them being between 5 feet 5 and 5 feet 7 in height, “and slender in build.” I do not understand why you're arguing with me about this point. Why do you think that the Washington Post and the 9/11-Commission aren't good enough sources for this claim? Quote: Quote: With 'armed' you mean boxcutters with unstable blades fabricated with predetermined breaking lines, which where used on 9/11 according to the exihibits from the Moussaoui trial? And how could there be direct evidence when no one survived to give testimony? And to my knowledge, there wasn't a live-web-cam on board, was it? To avoid reasonable thinking and conclusions, you demand evidence, though this evidence could not be presented to you. Didn't one of the people (Olson) calling from a hi-jacked plane say the terrorists were armed with box cutters? It is not unreasonable to think that the terrorists may have been armed. My statement was not in dispute to that claim, but relying on that. You said 'armed'. Armed can mean many things. It can mean guns, machetes, e-shocker, batons, or it can mean boxcutters with unstable blades which have prefabricated breaking lines. Box cutters are not very effective arms. That's why you never hear that somebody robbed a bank with a boxcutter... Quote: Quote: Of course, you're free to believe that most people in the military had never ever something to do with fighting. I'd recommend that you work on your skills to convince people... I do not believe anything like that. You need to stop embellishing the meaning of my posts and just stick to what I said. Ok, let's stick to what you said: You said the fact that there were 20+ people on board with military background, including war-veterans, doesn't mean that anyone had anything to do with fighting. I asked you to back up your claim by researching the background of those people and by providing evidence for your claim. You replied that you won't do it, so I consider your claim ("Not all military are trained to fight; I was a technician on a ship."), which is of course true in general, as unsubstantial regarding this special case. What's the percentage rate of those in the military who have something to do with fighting? 1, 5, 10, 20, 50 %? And how many would that be in comparison to 20+ people with military background? And again, my point doesn't even rely on the fact that 20+ people had a military background. My point relies on what you believe happened on Flight 93! Quote: Quote: When I said earlier that with what you're stating you're unknowingly saying that Burlingame was a coward, then I was wrong. You're stating this in full knowledge. Of course, you phrase this otherwise, as "just not capable" - knowing that it doesn't benefit your point when you openly say what your statements imply - that Burlingame was a coward. People who knew him neither think that he was a coward or that he was not capable. I only said there was no evidence that Burlingame resisted the hi-jackers. You are the only one throwing around insults like "coward" and "not capable". Trying to blame me for those insults is not going to work. Your conclusions are based upon your over-active imagination. You should stick to replying to what I said, not to what you imagine I said. Why are you doing what you are doing now? I still prefer the evaluations of those who knew Burlingame instead of your unsubstantial claims which imply that Burlingame was a coward by using the euphemism "just not capable" - and therefore are insulting. Note what has been said about Burlingame: Quote: "We wanted to assure people that if there was any chance of saving that plane, this was the kind of guy who would have been able to do that," she said. "This was a guy that's been through SERE (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape) school in the Navy and had very tough psychological and physical preparation." According to the 9/11-Commission, the attribute "very tough psychological and physical preparation" could not be applied to the hijackers.
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08

My thoughts on the hijackers. · Hijackers