Re: FAO Friar Tuck III
- From: parris_k@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
On 27 Aug, 15:40, FriarTuck <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:31:35 -0700, parris_k wrote:
YOu recently asserted thatHanjourcould not have flown the attack
against the Pentagon because the turn flown prior to the final approach
was of too small a circumference.
look, parris_k... whatever your real name is... you know its a lie to say
I said it could not be done...
You claimed Hanhour could not have done it.
YOu claim a simple turn was some sort of complex manouver.
YOU made claims about the "circumference" of it when you clearly had
no idea what the circumference of the turn was...
Do you see the logical failure in your assertions?
| just that I say it is quite a feat to
avoid the easy straight line run to any target in washington and then do
a tight and accurate turn
It wasn't very accuracte, as it wasn#t regular.
And, once again, you have NO IDEA how tight it was...
And, if he'd been a better pilot, he woudln't have NEEDEDto do that
turn...
Is any of this sinking in?
| to hit pentagon in the newly moved auditing department (claim by German research group).
i.e. as your claims are demolished you merely ignore their demolishing
and thrown up NEW, unsubstantiated claims in there place, and as these
are demolished, you throw up new ones again..
Do you see a problem with that approach?
I claimed a barnstormer or the red arrows would have been proud of the
feat, that may be an exaggeration, in the abscence of comment from a real
red arrow pilot, but there is plenty of comment from real pilots to say
it was no mean feat.
for example
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hanjour.html
[quote]
"Aviation sources said the plane was flown with *extraordinary* *skill*,
making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly
one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder,
a move that is considerably less than obvious. [Washington Post]"
[end quote]
YOu have no way of knowing if that comment came form a pilot - it is
credited to a anonymous "aviation sources".
Of course, Hanjours WAS a trined pilot - and his instructor said he
had no doubt Hanjoure was capable of achieving what he did.
Oh, and turning the transponder off isn#t exactly difficult.
or the fact that one schoolhanjourwent to in Feb 2001 reported him to
the FAA because they thought his CPL was a fake.....
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756...
[quote]
Although the authorities say none of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 were tied
to an F.B.I. intelligence alert issued by an agent in Arizona two months
earlier, one hijacker, HaniHanjour, had come to the Federal
Aviation Administration's attention earlier last year, when he trained in
Phoenix.
Mr.Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed
into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001
after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting
skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they
questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine.
[end quote]
No quote to that effectfrom teh instructors though.. in fact the ONLY
quote from Hanjour#s CFI was taht he had "no doubt" Hanjour could have
achieved the task..
So, for the third time now, I'll ask you politely,
please stop harassing me.
I see- once your false assertions are demlished, you lose your desire
to engage in "rational debate"
That's rather hypocritical, and dishonest./
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: FAO Friar Tuck III
- From: FriarTuck
- Re: FAO Friar Tuck III
- References:
- FAO Friar Tuck III
- From: parris_k
- Re: FAO Friar Tuck III
- From: FriarTuck
- FAO Friar Tuck III
- Prev by Date: Re: Team GB Flag ?
- Next by Date: Re: on some of the chaos the tories will inherit as 'new' labour fades in to the sunset......
- Previous by thread: Re: FAO Friar Tuck III
- Next by thread: Re: FAO Friar Tuck III
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|