| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| My thoughts on the hijackers. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 9 2008, 01:25 PM (1,250 Views) | |
| Mick | Mar 13 2009, 07:48 PM Post #26 |
|
It sounds like you are making an accusation. If you can’t show me evidence of my satisfaction, l then I suggest that you do not put your thoughts online.
And you evidence for this is? I do not know anything about Hanjour other than he was probably a good enough pilot to crash a plane into a big building. You still think he was only 5 feet tall?
So how many times did Burlington successfully resist an armed terrorist? I am not claiming that he could not, there is just no direct evidence he was able to on 9/11.
I claimed that just because they were in the military, this does not mean they were trained to fight. If you want evidence that demonstrates otherwise, or to support your own conclusions, then you need to find it yourself.
It is fine that you believe that all people would chose to fight to save their lives, but it is obvious to even the most unformed person that some competent adults just are not capable of it. How many times have you read a news story about people being killed without defending themselves? It happens at times. Not everyone is capable to using deadly force, even to save themselves.
You will not gain anything by suggesting that I said I would not even try to defend myself when I actually said I might not be capable of doing so. Stick to the facts, do not make them up. As long as you are so good at making things up, you tell us the difference. So how is the drive to get your suspects into a courtroom? Or are you still in bed? |
 |
 
|
| Mick | Mar 13 2009, 08:01 PM Post #27 |
|
Got photos or witnesses that saw these teams dressed as Arabs? What do Arabs dress like anyway? Arab is a very broad term, some of them even wear pants, shirts and shoes. Why haven't you posted photos of the visas they used? The imagination/scanner cable broken? I think they were just SOB terrorists and murders. You are wasting sympathy on some of the worst people in the world. |
|
|
|
| Mick | Mar 13 2009, 08:06 PM Post #28 |
|
What about the airphone calls? Can you tell us about any hi-jackings that did not result in a deviation from course? I do not think someone is going to buy a ticket to get on a plane only to fly it to the planned destination. While this may have happened, I do not know of any. How small are these tiny slivers of airspace? |
|
|
|
| NK-44 | Mar 13 2009, 08:58 PM Post #29 |
|
So, you knew him better than the people unsuccessfully trying for years to teach him how to fly.
Where did I ever claim so?
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.
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...
Your denial has nothing to do with reasonable argumentation. We're not talking about people who for instance have been robbed and subsequently killed on the street, and didn't resist because they might hoped to get out alive. In case of Flight 77 we deal with a completely other situation. Dozens of people KNOWING they we're going to die for quite a while. And nobody took the challenge? 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. Just follow the links I presented and you will recognize how unreasonable your point is - though I'm convinced you're quite aware of it.
So I make things up, lol. You're making things up all the time. From Burlingame not capable to fight to Hani capable to control the flight.
My 'accusation' was more a conclusion derived from what you said. But I do not hesitate to admit when I was wrong. Especially when I have the pleasure to learn that another one is joining our fight to get a new investigation that leads to accountability. I really appreciate that, what I do not understand, is, why then you're doing here what you're doing here. Edited by NK-44, Mar 13 2009, 10:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Mick | Mar 13 2009, 10:48 PM Post #30 |
|
No, I said he was able to crash a plane.
Sorry, I read your "5 foot 7" as 5 foot.
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.
I do not believe anything like that. You need to stop embellishing the meaning of my posts and just stick to what I said.
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? |
|
|
|
| NK-44 | Mar 14 2009, 11:56 AM Post #31 |
|
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.
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?
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...
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!
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:
According to the 9/11-Commission, the attribute "very tough psychological and physical preparation" could not be applied to the hijackers. |
|
|
|
| floridatruth | Apr 17 2009, 04:42 PM Post #32 |
|
Jack D Where did you get the info about them turning off their transponders in a weak spot of the radar? This is important info. Thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
| JackD | Apr 17 2009, 07:22 PM Post #33 |
|
google it up floridatruth! |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Hijackers · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
1:35 AM Nov 9
