SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (10344)12/24/2001 11:26:46 AM
From: William B. Kohn  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 23908
 
I run into the same problem when responding to Nazi Jaeger the kook!



To: Brumar89 who wrote (10344)12/24/2001 11:29:11 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 23908
 
Re: What made the 9/11 plane crashes so terribly destructive was that they were fully fueled for a cross-country flight - the burning fuel is what melted the structural supports at the WTC and caused the collapse, remember? An international flight coming into the US would have burned up much of it's fuel load, therefore wouldn't be as destructive when crashed.

ROFL! C'mon.... That's the kind of whiz-bang planning only teenage videogame-addicts would buy! It's already outrageous enough to plough airliners right into the WTC and the Pentagon --who cares about the thermodynamics of the blast?!? Do you seriously think that the whole chain of ensuing events would have developed differently if the towers didn't collapse?

On the other hand, the hijack of an international flight could have been carried out with a JUMBO 747 --much more "impressive"....

As for "An international flight coming into the US would have burned up much of its fuel load...", I was hinting at a Frankfurt-Chicago flight... or Paris-LA, if you prefer: in these cases, as the jetliner is approaching the US's North/East border, there's STILL ENOUGH FUEL TO CROSS THE US to reach its destination (either Chicago or LA).

Re: Then there is the attendance at flight schools - unnecessary for normal hijackers as they can use the airplane's pilots to fly wherever they want - hijackers only need flight training if they are planning on doing something a real pilot would NEVER do - like fly into a building.

You didn't attend my first lessons, did you? DUNCE! Of course, flight training was mandatory for the hijackers because they had to embark the plane WITHOUT FIREARMS!! That way there was just nothing for airport security to prevent them from getting on board... However, it changes the hijack's modus operandi into a whole'nother ball game. Indeed, how do you force both the pilot and the co-pilot to obey your orders if you don't scare them in the first place?

At that point, the hijackers may have to "dispose" of rebellious pilots... but then, who's gonna sit behind the wheel? And that's how you end up realizing that, somehow, the hijackers need a "crash course" on how to flight a jetliner...

BTW, you forgot another important clue the media have pointed to all along: the fact that the hijackers were allegedly not interested in learning how to take off/land an airplane. But then again, when a hijacked airplane is allowed to land on any given airport, flying assistance can be provided from the ground/control tower so that even your aunt could do it just like that....

Gus



To: Brumar89 who wrote (10344)12/24/2001 11:59:16 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 23908
 
Footnotes to my previous post:
Message 16344701
Message 16337787