Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by mmiichael
Truthers have told conflicting stories about the Pentagon situation.
Can you spell flyover.

mmiichael has already shown us his logical deficiencies in this thread, now he's come back to show some more.

mmiichael - I don't care how crazy, contradictory or plain stupid any truther theory is.

The official government story was the one that was used to sell the war in the Middle East. The official government story is the one that has to be correct... or else it all hits the fan.

The official government story is the one that's been written into the history books. It's supposed to be correct, yet it contains contradictions from politicians and officials.

reply to post by tezzajw


"Casual readers to the thread will note that in pteridine's world, it's ok for politicians to contradict each other and that we're supposed to believe what they say."

Casual readers will also note that once again, Tezza has made an illogical argument. Politicians contradict each other all the time and that is not evidence of a conspiracy. At no time did I state that anyone was supposed to believe them. A retraction will mollify my hurt feelings.

As to continued support of the somebody-for-truth crowd, I point out those who have selected you as a friend, including spreston, turbofan, and impressme. Obviously, long term support of their opinions and posts has resulted in your fellow travellers selecting you as a friend.





[edit on 9/20/2009 by pteridine]

Originally posted by tezzajw
The official government story is the one that's been written into the history books. It's supposed to be correct, yet it contains contradictions from politicians and officials.

How much do you read? Have you ever looked at anything beside a Truther site and Youtube?

I've read the New York Times for years. They regularly publish long investigative pieces showing serious US government conflicts of interest, corruption, corporate crime, abuse of privilege, highest level malfeasances. And they're known as the "Paper of Record."

You repeatedly spout the same dogma and really don't know what you're talking about.

Mike

reply to post by mmiichael


Yes, the NYT is the paper of record and FOX is now the only place to get real news. Why would anything that the same man that completely destroyed news on television would do the same to the newspaper he has purchased?

You read from the same trough as fox and friends in the morning now. Enjoy bragging about that to no one in particular.

reply to post by Lillydale


Where do you get your news, Lillydale? are your sources paper or web based?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Where do you get your news, Lillydale? are your sources paper or web based?

Fox news and the NYT, did you not just see me praising them so? Is this your way of pretending that it has not been pointed out that you are getting your news from the same man that passes beck, oreally, and hannity off as journalists?

Honestly, what is the difference? I am not here bragging that I know more than others because of the papers or websites that I read.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by pteridine
Casual readers will also note that once again, Tezza has made an illogical argument. Politicians contradict each other all the time and that is not evidence of a conspiracy. At no time did I state that anyone was supposed to believe them. A retraction will mollify my hurt feelings.

Casual readers to the thread will note that pteridine insists on trying to discuss other issues and other situations, rather than the topic at hand - which is the Pentagon.

I don't care about other instances of lying politicians, pteridine. Politicians have given conflicting statements about the Pentagon. That's enough to raise suspicion that not all of the evidence is as it appears to be.

Originally posted by pteridine
As to continued support of the somebody-for-truth crowd, I point out those who have selected you as a friend, including spreston, turbofan, and impressme. Obviously, long term support of their opinions and posts has resulted in your fellow travellers selecting you as a friend.

What's your point? I've been selected as a friend by a few other forum members and you're clutching at straws trying to find some kind of association? Of the 59 people who have selected me as a friend, you're mentioning 3 of them to try and build a case? Most notably, Craig, Aldo or Rob Balsamo have not added me as their friend, so what is your point, pteridine?

What's the matter, pteridine - are you jealous that I have some people who've selected me as an ATS friend? You're not trying to turn this into a pissing contest because you only have 5 friends, are you?

pteridine, your argument has never been weaker when you resort to blind guesses to try and pin me as a CIT/P4T drone. I notice that you haven't offered the apology or retraction for making the false claim that I was. It's typical disinformation and pointless to this thread.

Your complete waste of server space has been noted. Stick to the topic of the thread - CIT's investigation of the Pentagon.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by tezzajw


Casual readers will note that whenever Tezza brings up a topic, such as "all the evidence" and "politicians' " statements, he will resort to tactics of deflection when he finds himself in an uncomfortable position.

How alarming do you think the information that the investigation yielded is? Somewhat alarming, very alarming, or completely damning? Do you think CIT is on the right track or are they off the mark?

reply to post by A Fortiori



Hey, there ---

Did you get the transcripts from the 9-11 documents? Do you have a link?

The one I used is from the NTSB:
www.flight77.info...

...said that he felt that the individual flew like he was military or an "expert" and from what his instructors said should not have been able to fly that well.

No, he did NOT fly that well, not like an "expert" and not like a military pilot. I showed that in the YouTube video, by noting the erratic control wheel movements. He was unsure of himself, and over-controlling at times..."yanking and banking" is a colloquial phrase...but the 757/767 is very forgiving. They really are sweet to fly, and while the inputs of a hack pilot will be felt when operating the controls abruptly, the visual response of the airplane to an outside observer is not so apparent.

It is also a generally true statement that the bigger and heavier a jet is, the easier it is to fly. Ths seems illogical, but when you consider the momentum of larger mass, it makes sense. I can attest to it, as well.

I have a...er, um, friend who is a former military pilot who also says that Hanjour's flight instructors said he wasn't a very good student...

Well....my experience in teaching showed me that certain....um, er....cultural differences in certain segments of the population manifested less-than-skillful eye/hand coordination abilities. (I'm treading carefully here...lest I fall into the trap of being accused racist. I'm NOT, because I happen to know many people of Arabic origin who are capable. It stems back to as I said, hand/eye coordination and critical thinking skills, and what is "normal" in one's culture that encourages and prospers such skills may vary....)

Still, if you have a wad of cash, a lot of schools will happily milk it out of your hands for as long as you're willing. Some people may, after an EXTREME excess of extra training, finally be able to pass all the testsand checkrides...but merely havingthe license doesn't imply "skill".

...and that there was some turn that was made that this guy says you would have had to have been to make and that the plane came close to a "landing".

No, not close to landing. AND, your friend must have been reading some of the conspiracy sites, not getting the full story. The only turns he made were the 180 turn after taking control at FL350, and the big turn in the video...as shown, not difficult in the least. (He would have been so focused and engrossed in his task that he probably didn't hear the automated recorded warning (Bank Angle, Bank Angle) blaring on the overhead speakers.

That activates just beyond the 35-degree angle just as an advisory to pilots. In our simulator training (and even in real airplanes, back in the days before simulators) "steep turns" are practiced and required to be precisely accomplished at 45-degrees and 60-degrees, to demonstrate a pilot's mastery of basic aviating skills, in the jet he's being qualified on.

(Requirements? Ability to hold the assigned airspeed - usually 250KT - +/- 5KT, and altitude +/- 100 feet). Hanjour was not that good, but he didn't have to be!

He doesn't think Hanjour was flying because of the maneuvers and something dealing with the weight of the plane on landing.

??? That's a non-sequitor to me...

reply to post by Lillydale



I did see you praising them. I was trying to determine if you were being sarcastic.

Originally posted by twitchy
reply to post by jthomas

 

This is about the fourth or fifth time you posted this, it's starting to become a childlish annoyance, especially in light of the fact you are unable to provide evidence to the contrary.

Read more carefully. You mean to direct your complaint to Lillydale who is the one who claimed that "there were no passenger bodies at the crash site" without a single stitch of evidence.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weedwacker,

I went to the document you linked (this is for conversation) and FYI, it is a government document analyzing the flight. Is there a link I missed?

Wouldn't it look like some computer readout of the box?

reply to post by A Fortiori

... it is a government document analyzing the flight.

Yes. It's just one, focused in this case on the Autopilot and Navigation and Fuel Consumption Activity.

Did you scroll down to pages 9-15?

Graphs are there.

There was no CVR readable from AA 77, but I was linked the CVR transcript from UA 93 via U2U.

Stand by........
________________________________________________________

OK. (no right-click copy/paste...so I'm typing all this out...)

www.scribd.com...

You can compare times on that, with the times in the NTSB link for UA 93. I know this thread is about AA 77, but if ONE transcript and NTSB report jives, then is it safe to conclude that the other is accurate too??





[edit on 21 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Jezus

"show us..that NO passenger bodies were found"

Don't you see how ridiculous this statement is?

Then you will tell Lillydale to retract her claim that she knows there "were no passengers bodies at the crash?"

You'd better get to it, Jezus. Times a-wasting!

Nobody is my keeper, BOY.

I will retract nothing. Just because you are obviously too stupid or too damaged to understand a little simple logic,...

Too bad that logic flies right over your head, bubba.

Just wait till you try to sell your fallacious reasoning in the real world.


The point should be clear now why 9/11 "Truthers" have no ability to communicate, support their claims, or reason logically. Both you and Lillydale demonstrate through your bassackwards logic that you would be totally incapable of convincing anyone that there would ever be a single reason why there should ever be another investigation.

But of course that fact will fly right over your heads like all facts and evidence have so far.

the people in power have been warned about bringing up another investigation...why do you think 5 people died from mailed anthrax. 2 democratic leaders were sent anthrax, that were in the process of asking too many questions. case closed, you'll simply have to live with the lie. nobody is going to risk their families lives, even if they would risk their own.

reply to post by jthomas


here's 250 reasons you might want to ponder:

killtown.911review.org...

it seemed to "nudge" me over to the side of another investigation.

Originally posted by jthomas
Read more carefully. You mean to direct your complaint to Lillydale who is the one who claimed that "there were no passenger bodies at the crash site" without a single stitch of evidence.

You have continually brought this topic up but you have NEVER supplied any evidence of bodies at the crash site...

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
Read more carefully. You mean to direct your complaint to Lillydale who is the one who claimed that "there were no passenger bodies at the crash site" without a single stitch of evidence.

You have continually brought this topic up but you have NEVER supplied any evidence of bodies at the crash site...

JTHOMAS might be a disinfo, due to the use of rather childish envectives such as "never convince anyone", or just maybe a child.

or again he just may want to argue because he is bored.


[edit on 21-9-2009 by jimmyx]

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
Read more carefully. You mean to direct your complaint to Lillydale who is the one who claimed that "there were no passenger bodies at the crash site" without a single stitch of evidence.

You have continually brought this topic up but you have NEVER supplied any evidence of bodies at the crash site...

Stop being a chump. Just show us how Liliydale KNOWS "there were no passenger bodies at the crash scene."

If she knows it, she can demonstrate it.

Stop being ridiculous and answer the question.

reply to post by jthomas


Then why don't you simply just prove her wrong? It seems that you are avoiding doing that. This isn't a win-win situation and this thread alone is probably enough reason for a new investigation.