[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

nonsense, kids know how to fly on x box

i think you do, dont ya?

Well, obviously this is a new account.

Hang on, let me wave my divining rod over my laptop screen. Nope, no luck, but the others in my zoom meeting were not amused.

thats called an example, or a hypothetical

"Atta began flight training on 6 July 2000, and continued training nearly every day. By the end of July, both Atta and Shehhi did solo flights. Atta earned his private pilot certificate in September, and then he and Shehhi decided to switch flight schools. Both enrolled at Jones Aviation in Sarasota and took training there for a brief time. They had problems following instructions and were both very upset when they failed their Stage 1 exam. They inquired about multi-engine planes and told the instructor that "they wanted to move quickly, because they had a job waiting in their country upon completion of their training in the U.S." In mid-October, Atta and Shehhi returned to Huffman Aviation to continue training. In November 2000, Atta earned his instrument rating, and then a commercial pilot's license in December from the Federal Aviation Administration.[10]

Atta continued with flight training that included solo flights and simulator time. On 22 December, Atta and Shehhi applied to Eagle International for large jet and simulator training for McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and Boeing 737-300 models. On 26 December, Atta and Shehhi needed a tow for their rented Piper Cherokee on a taxiway of Miami International Airport after the engine shut down. On 29 and 30 December, Atta and Marwan went to the Opa-locka Airport where they practiced on a Boeing 727 simulator, and they obtained Boeing 767 simulator training from Pan Am International on 31 December. Atta purchased cockpit videos for Boeing 747-200, Boeing 757-200, Airbus A320 and Boeing 767-300ER models via mail-order from Sporty's Pilot Shop in Batavia, Ohio, in November and December 2000.[10]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_At...

Right, so they trained, like I said. What's your point? Do you have one, or are you just posting random disjointed thoughts now?

my assumption is that they werent trained well enough to hit the WTC building, let alone have two different pilots hit it without missing on first try

ofc I could be wrong. Ive never argued about 9/11 thru text

You just posted a passage about the training they received. What was that passage supposed to demonstrate in terms of your point that they weren't trained well enough? It seems to be showing the opposite.

Are you sure your brain isn't irreparably broken? This is like basic logic stuff that is intuitive to a 3 year old.

I dont think they were being trained on how to hit buildings. I do not think their training would have made it so they could both fly planes into towers without very high chances of failure.

I do not believe the high chances of failure would results in both planes crashing into their tower targets, as well as a plan hitting the pentagon

So 3 outta 4 planes hit their very difficult to hit targets? By guys who originally failed their tests and dont follow instructions?

I assume you drive a car. What sort of additional training do you think you'd need to drive one into a wall?

Admittedly I'm not paying a lot of attention to this nonsense, but if the pilots didn't fly the planes into the buildings then...I'm not really sure what to ask. Did they fly themselves? Was everything I watched on TV that day AI generated?

no

do you think driving a car into a wall and flying 3 747s into ground targets are similarly difficult?

not sure, but Id like to see how feasible the official story is/was.

I have no idea, but until you explain to me why you think they aren't instead of just pulling numbers like 10% and 1% out of your ass, I'm going to assume they are. You are directing the vehicle to take a certain course. The obstacle is on that course. You crash into the obstacle. As long as you are able to direct the vehicle to take a certain course, which seems to me what flying a plane or driving a car *is* by definition, it seems pretty ****ing simple to me.

I mean, I don't have a way to prove it, but I'm fairly confident that if I had some basic flying skills and I'm already in the air I think I could hit a big building.

I am really failing to understand what the issue is here. I don't know anything about flying planes, but I assume pretty much the first thing you learn when you train to operate a vehicle is how to get it to move in the direction that you want.

How to hit a building with a plane:

1. Identify the building you want to hit
2. Direct the plane to fly towards it
3. Wait

I'm baffled that anyone thinks crashing a plane takes any kind of skill. No, hitting a building with a plane you know how to steer is not considerably harder than hitting a building with a car you know how to steer. This conversation is...concerning.

i'm pretty sure you could find a way to prove it, just you'd prefer not to engage in 9/11 2 electric boogaloo

I'm inclined to believe it was most likely shot down but I think the publicly available evidence is contradictory and inconclusive.

Here I will give you something you can really use to call me crazy. It should be apparent to anyone with a little knowledge that the speed of the fall of the buildings indicates demolition. It should be apparent to anyone with more than 2 brain cells working together that the heat blooms need to be explained. It should be obvious to everyone that the explanations we've got on the buildings are totally inept and incomplete and make ridiculous, unjustifiable assumptions. You shouldn't be calling me crazy for saying any of that.

But you can call me crazy for saying it is a possibility that the planes had modified avionics which made them into drones. The technology was available. We also delved into this in the older thread. I think this is a possibility and, for this, you can call me crazy and I can at least say I can see your reasoning.

So you feel that that the likelihood of these dudes being able to fly a plane into a giant building is too unlikely so your assumption is that the planes were flown into the building by remote?

Were the planes that hit their targets empty?

You could explain driving on an oil slick in the same oversimplified manner and it wouldn't be wrong, but it wouldn't be very helpful either. I'm guessing you're one of those people who had no qualms with the logic of the movie Independence Day.

It's accepted even by the mainstream (not you but the part of the mainstream that has some curiosity) that, at a certain point in the approach trajectory to one of the towers, a very difficult course correction was required which carried a very low probability of a human executing it. That's not proof of the planes being modified into drones, but the more luck you have to give the hijackers to pull this off the more it forces theories (if we are actually trying to find the truth I'm assuming - I don't know what your aim is) away from the official story.

Fine - that's what I was asking PW to explain. Who said I'm not accepting it? It's the first I've heard of it. I am sure that a certifiable genius like you is capable of following a conversation between a couple of simpletons like me and PW, so why don't you go and re-read it and you'll see that the information you just provided is what I was asking for. In the absence of this information, I drew my own conclusions.

How's sourcing that NIST report reference going? Progress update?

That? That's done. I did that like 10 years ago.

It is possible to have structural damage without total collapse. There are lots of observations you are totally neglecting but you also have the problem of accounting for the total collapses of all 3 buildings.

There were many demolitions experts who went on the record saying like no question the buildings were demolished. Most of them changed their story later. One prominent one, a European guy, held his ground. He died in a a weird car accident, like just a tree in the middle of a field. That's how I would assassinate people if I was an intelligence agency. If you make it look too believable as a suicide or accident you don't get the warning and threatening effect. You need to be making an example as well as eliminating a threat.