reply to post by SPreston
What a shame. An actual eyewitness who isn't one of
your and other's handpicked "twenty plus"...or, as you so helpfully wrote out,
"20+0"
Ahem....20
plus 0????
No need, anymore, to try to point out how you spin people's words, all the while spouting the same mantra...it's like you're all given the same
'talking points' script, because the repeating rhetoric is growing thin.
Take the "over the Naval Annex" imbroglio, for example. Have you ever been to the Newark airport? I-95 runs parallel to Runways 4/22, and there's
an IKEA just the other side of the ExpressWay. SO, from your vantage point on the Airport property, as you watch airplanes land on Runway 4R, the
perspective
could make it appear that the airplane passes over the IKEA building. You might even say to someone, "Look at that airplane!"
And, they'd say, "Where?" "Over the IKEA building!"
See? The building is in your line-of-sight, the airplane is in your line-of-sight, but the perspective is such that you can't BE CERTAIN exactly
where the airplane is laterally. That's the problem with YOUR alleged 'eye witnesses'.
AND ANOTHER THING! I assume you're a proponent of "Cap'n" ('Pilot Extraordinaire', or whatever ridiculous label he assigned himself) Bob and
his P4T circus, suggesting "impossible" G forces, and crap? Well, why not take another look at your alleged 'North of Citgo' graphic, again. See
that curved blue line? The radius of
that line is impossible for an airplane at the speeds observed on 9/11. Did your alleged 'eye
witnesses' say the airplane they was going fast? Or, was it the speed of a small Cessna?
Really, you should look into the above paragraph, get a mathematician, have him/her calculate A) rate of turn at various bank angles and speeds, then
B) calculate, using that data, the radius of the actual ground track for such turns. But, it would spoil your fantasy, wouldn't it?
Finally, going on the 'Talking Points', why oh why would the alleged 'perps' go to such elaborate lengths to "stage" light poles, and such?? I
mean, if it was faked, they could just as easily have made the claim that the airplane impacted at a downward angle, thus missing all of the pesky
obstructions!!!
BTW...did it ever occur to any of you that the airplane didn't necessarily
need to skate across the lawn by mere inches in order to cause the
observed damage?
Well, let's see which molehills you choose to turn into mountains, this time.
[edit on 6/26/0909 by weedwhacker]
