Besides,how can the man be director of a program under presidents ford and carter,when it came about under the president that came after them? According to wikipedia bowman in fact was director of advanced space program development,not star wars, and he was an early vocal critic of the star wars program.
Why is it dishonest? Would you disagree that people do dishonorable business practices? Like for example, looking the other way? And bad drivers do pass drivers tests. Look at teenage girls. And how is the instructor responsible once the person leaves with certificate in hand? The person is 'qualified' because they have a certificate stating that they've competed X amount of hours worth of stuff. They now hold responsibility for themselves. The instructor has taught and been paid, so his job and responsibility is over.
Because truthers never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Do I need one? The plane was in the air coming down. Plenty of truthers claim there were no marks on the lawn. The plane hit the building and didn't hit the lawn. Lots of eyewitnesses saw it hit the building. So . . . it seem pretty obvious that the line of descent intersected the building before it did the lawn. Don't know why this is considered a spectacular maneuver by "expert" pilots or why someone would respond with "Got a source?" Do you believe everything you saw in Loose Change?
Assuming the people follow the rules so they do not lose their livelihood, the only way you can come to this conclusion is if you make things up. Most people take their jobs seriously, that is, unless you are projecting.
So your contention is that the same man who called hanjour a 'lousy' pilot falsifed FAA documents to give him pilot certification?
Because you make an assumption (he was a poor pilot, therefore someone dishonestly helped him get his license) and then try to pass it off as fact with no other possibility. That, in my book, is very dishonest. No, I would not disagree. I just don't assume that because person X claimed someone was a bad pilot that person Y MUST be dishonest. Yet do you claim they cannot drive at all? Do you claim the instructor passed them dishonestly? If the instructor has done his job, he is not responsible. If the person passed the tests, the law says they are legal to drive. If the instructor knowingly let them slide, he is at least partially responsible for any negative outcome. Yet you just made the claim that because person X said Hanjour was a "lousy pilot" that the instructor cheated and that Hanjour was not properly certified. Did Hanjour complete his required hours? Yes. Did the instructor cheat? There is no evidence he did. Was Hanjour a pilot? The fact he took numerous aircraft up, flew them, landed and survived to tell the tale, yes, he was a pilot no matter what truthers say or how much they lie about his abilities.
Dave, Do you have a source to back up your claim though? "The line of descent took him into the building before the plane would have hit the ground." The Pentagon is another source of "up in the air" for me. The lawn being undisturbed and the damage being so low to the ground is troubling to me. Allegations of poor piloting abilities of the pilot further exacerbates things. Hearing that some of the hijackers received training on US military installations is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing.
I Googled it, man. Jeez. Give me some cred. There are two guys that spent ample time debunking Loose Change(s). I looked through their information too.
What do you know about flight? When you say "it looks like" are you talking about your own personal experience with flight? Do you know about ground effect? Do you know what happens to the controls when an air frame is travelling at high speed and low altitude?
No, I don't have a source. Why do you need a source? It's simple geometry. The plane was descending. It hit a building before it hit the ground. Therefore the line of the plane's descent intersected the building before it intersected the ground. What is so hard about understanding that. And why does it take incredible piloting skill to aim a plane at a building? Why do truthers assume he was aiming for a particular point on the building when he only needed to hit the (*)(*)(*)(*) thing? Oh yeah, I'm sure he was aiming for the budget analyst's office. (eyeroll) And if he had hit the kitchen we'd be hearing how there was something incriminating in there that the gov wanted to keep secret. What is troubling about him hitting the building before he hit the lawn? The building is 5 stories tall. Yes, it would if those allegations were true. But I wouldn't believe much of anything I saw on Loose Change. Do those installations also train non-military personnel? And why would that be? Is it necessary to touch the lawn before crashing into a building -- low or not? Did he pull up at the end? Who knows? Could he have done it again? No one knows. Maybe he got lucky. Maybe it was ground effect. But to say it couldn't have happened because xyz when all of the available evidence says that it did is pretty silly. How hard is it to steer a plane into a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing building for crying out loud?
Keep polishing that "official" BS story. Make it more complex than it needs to be, than pretend you're an expert pilot....LetsRoll..............bye
It is what all truthers are eventually reduced to. When all their lies are exposed and they can't even begin to defend them, they resort to heckling usually in an effort to get banned to thus somehow validate their claims of persecution. Thus you get the constant promotion of a site RWAF isn't even welcome at and rarely visits and the childish name calling and accusations of the Mods, Administrators, and the owner of this site.
You and others like you sir have alleged that three buildings aggregating 267 floors were brought down by controlled demolition. It is up to you to prove that story. Disproving other stories does not prove that one. Tell us how you go about clandestinely rigging 267 floors of building in just 8.5 months. The demolition industry would love an answer to that one. Currently without having to hide anything from public scrutiny it takes them nearly that long to do 21 stories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you RtwngaFraud for your video link , I have work a lot on that subject 7 years ago ! Amusing to watch those bu(*)(*)(*)(*)es 9-11 anticonspirancy folks still roaming around this forum subject , how is the food at the NSA dining room , not too much rain in England ? ^^ My cent for that thread The 9-11 explained with 5 words : Abestos WTCgold SEC Bankers Pentagon Happy ? ^^
Looks like you're going to need more than five words because the ones you picked are fairly meaningless when examined. Is it really cheaper to organize and carry out the massive 9/11 conspiracy than to do asbestos abatement as they were already doing? Wow. The WTC gold? I like how you try to combine it into one word. We know you truthers are desperate to get something right. The problem with the WTC gold (and silver) is that it was all recovered. I love how truthers like to pretend all that missing gold would just be written off and not recovered. You don't really want me to continue.....
