What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

Originally posted by Lillydale

What exactly is it in his argument that has you on the fence instead of toppling over? I am really just curious because certain key elements that would help me just seem to be really hard to come by.

It’s not his arguments that got me on the fence. I already was there. I’m not a scientist, nor a pilot, or a PhD. So I’m not gonna claim I know the truth or can explain everything. I just read a lot and try to be logic and skeptic.

I like weedwhacker because he wants to share his knowledge even though some will not appreciate it. I think his explanations are very clear and to the point.

Originally posted by Stich2306

Originally posted by Lillydale

What exactly is it in his argument that has you on the fence instead of toppling over? I am really just curious because certain key elements that would help me just seem to be really hard to come by.

It’s not his arguments that got me on the fence. I already was there. I’m not a scientist, nor a pilot, or a PhD. So I’m not gonna claim I know the truth or can explain everything. I just read a lot and try to be logic and skeptic.

I like weedwhacker because he wants to share his knowledge even though some will not appreciate it. I think his explanations are very clear and to the point.

Well, why did you not just say so. I can make things up, read off of websites and pretend I have some expertise that I do not have. Why did you not just say that being lied to is all you really need as long is sounds ok to you. I was wondering specifically what he said that really touched you because I thought you might want the truth instead but hey, you go ahead and enjoy that SIDE of the fence and just believe people that say things you like to hear.

reply to post by Lillydale

Well, why did you not just say so. I can make things up, read off of websites and pretend I have some expertise that I do not have.

Sadly, this is exactly the bulk of the current incarnation of the 9/11 "truth movement". Which is why a reinvestigation, or anyone really taking it seriously, becomes less and less likely.

reply to post by Lillydale

I can make things up, read off of websites and pretend I have some expertise that I do not have.

Could you please cite the 'sources' of all of my knowledge that I have dug up just from the Intenet? (Obviously excluding the items I linked to help esplain things). Thank you.

AND, also please point out specific instances where you imply I am "making something up" relating to aviation, airplane operation (specifically the B757/767) and anything else related to flying. Thank you.


A question, that occured to me based on an earlier comment, Lilly, regarding the simulators. I thought that the sim was a valid recreation of the real thing, but you weren't sure because you didn't think it could adequately simulate all of the aerodynamic forces....because, if I get what you were implying, it was well beyond the design limits of the real airplane.

I believe that the computer algorithms, being nothing more than mathematics, will adequately go beyond even the published Aircraft Limitations....

But, given your stance, is it safe to assume that even IF we could get a video made of a simulator "flight" to re-create the events of 9/11 (in terms of the flying parts) that you'd still be unconvinced? In other words, would you still think that the simulator is insufficient??


[edit on 2 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by turbofan



Ya know, turbofan (and Lillydale, since this involves you too...just reference the post of "turbo's" that I'm replying here) --- I decided to dust off the ole' Airman's (Pilot's) Handbook of Aviation Knowledge. You know? The one you kept referencing to, early on?


I noticed lately you claim to be a technical sort...well, that may be, but you still don't know beans about aerodynamics and airplanes....that's why some engineers remain engineers, and pilots are pilots...engineers can be too literally-minded.


From the book mentioned...(and YES it's a 'what-if' scenario they used for illustration, but would they have used it if it was "impossible"????):

In the discussion of high-speed flight (and high altitude, of course), the section heading is 'Mach Number Versus Airspeed'. (Page 41, Chapter 4)

Gee, it pretty much says what I've been saying the whole time!


This has a hypothetical airplane that they have told us has an MMO of M.82:

Assuming for illustration purposes that the pilot climbs at a MMO of 0.82 from sea level up to FL 380. KCAS goes from 543 to 261. The KIAS at each altitude would follow the same behavior and just differ by a few knots. Recall from the earlier discussion that the speed of sound is decreasing with the drop in temperature as the aircraft climbs. The Mach number is simply the ratio of the true airspeed to the speed of sound at flight conditions. The significance of this is that at a constant Mach number climb, the KCAS (and KTAS or KIAS as well) is falling off.

Now, firstly...those airspeed figures are in knots, of course. Only laypeople and advertising executives for airlines speak of 'MPH'.

Secondly, the snippet is discussing a KCAS (remember the 'K' stands for 'knots'...in case you forget) of 543! At sea level! Imagine that.....




[edit on 2 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AND, also please point out specific instances where you imply I am "making something up" relating to aviation, airplane operation (specifically the B757/767) and anything else related to flying. Thank you.

Please allow me. I have no desire to find the exact quote so I will have to paraphrase but you let me know if I am way off in the content. "I am a real pilot."

reply to post by K J Gunderson

...let me know if I am way off in the content.

OK...you are way off in content.

Satisfied?

Problem is, as "turbofan" asked, he wanted my NAME to check in the FAA database. Anyone can go there, pick a name and claim it's theirs. You could do that.

Thing is, I can write what I know. Can you???

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by Seventh

 

If you look at each still frame behind the box in the foreground in these official trial still frames, your plane is still there in each still and is really composed of the background.

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui OFFICIAL STORY Parking Lot Video Still Frames

Yes it is true, and government loyalist and expert witness jthomas confirms there is no aircraft in the video hitting the Pentagon.

posted by jthomas

Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

If you can't do that, then you will issue a public retraction right here, correct? What's that, you can't? C'mon, be a sport, just try.

In fact, as we rational people have said for years, one cannot conclude by looking at the security camera video that anything hit the Pentagon.

jthomas Photoshopping Incorporated

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/48d006eea9cc.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
It was a missile, I think a globalhawk. But there was also explosives in that section of the building.

A full sized Boeing was also at the scene - but had to have overflown the Pentagon, just like the CIT Investigative Team has hypothesized.

And whatever Boeing was there at the scene, overflying the Pentagon wall, at the time of the explosion and/or missile attack, given the trajectory and maneuvering of that plane, it was surely piloted by remote control, and if that's not far out enough for the debunkers to go after, it probably also made use of adaptive camoflage technology, as it passed over that wall, from the ground perspective simply vanishing at that point, as it overflew the wall.

Sadly - this appears to violate occams razor - until one looks for wing and engine damage on the Pentagon wall, in particular, damage from the rear verticle stablizer wing, for which there is not a MARK, same for the wings, and the engines, which to have fit under the blown away ledge, would have HAD to have made a long gouge in the lawn leading up to the wall, but again NOTHING, just pretine Pentalawn grass, right up to the point of impact/explosion.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Mmm i wonder how the CIA and FBI actually know without doubt that it was the accused hijackers that really flew the airliners. Who saw them actually siting in the cockpit flying the jets?

Did CIA and FBI see them?

Mmm... Did they brush their fingerprints of the flight stick to confirm this or what?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

...let me know if I am way off in the content.

OK...you are way off in content.

Satisfied?

Way off? Are you sure? I am satisfied because I was pretty sure you had claimed to be a pilot. I knew you were not really a pilot so it is quite a relief to read that I was way off. So, just to be clear now - you are saying that you have not claimed to be a pilot?

Problem is, as "turbofan" asked, he wanted my NAME to check in the FAA database. Anyone can go there, pick a name and claim it's theirs. You could do that.

Thing is, I can write what I know. Can you???

You think that makes some kind of profound sense don't you? Of course you can write what you know. We can all write what we know. The problem is that you have not demonstrated that you know anything more than any non-pilot with access to an the internet or a library.

I guess the difference between us is that while I actually do write what I know, you write what you pretend to know.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Could you please cite the 'sources' of all of my knowledge that I have dug up just from the Intenet? (Obviously excluding the items I linked to help esplain things). Thank you.

Did you really just ask me to show you links to all the resources you used except for the ones you want to disqualify? For all I know, you have only supplied links to pages you have used so that cancels them all, doesn't it.

If you think you got me there, fine. You can have this. I cannot find all your sources. How could I? I never claimed that you plagiarized anything. This is the internet, there are more than a couple places to find out things. All you have to do is use your own words and viola! Whatever you want to call it. I cannot prove you looked stuff up on the internet. You cannot seem to prove you are a pilot either though so enjoy that all you like.

AND, also please point out specific instances where you imply I am "making something up" relating to aviation, airplane operation (specifically the B757/767) and anything else related to flying. Thank you.

You claiming to be a pilot.

A question, that occured to me based on an earlier comment, Lilly, regarding the simulators. I thought that the sim was a valid recreation of the real thing, but you weren't sure because you didn't think it could adequately simulate all of the aerodynamic forces....because, if I get what you were implying, it was well beyond the design limits of the real airplane.

When did I imply anything about the design limits? That is not really even in the same neighborhood. This is actually something I was really quite specific about so if you want to troll back and open it back up, then go find the original text.

I believe that the computer algorithms, being nothing more than mathematics, will adequately go beyond even the published Aircraft Limitations....

That is just great. It is good to believe things. I am noticing you have a habit of setting up these little straw men. You really need to stop pretending to bring up things I said and shooting them down and just stick to what I actually said. Perhaps if you had not taken 4 days to address it, your memory would be a little more clear.

But, given your stance, is it safe to assume that even IF we could get a video made of a simulator "flight" to re-create the events of 9/11 (in terms of the flying parts) that you'd still be unconvinced? In other words, would you still think that the simulator is insufficient??

Well not you have completely convoluted things, the best I can do is say yes. I do still think it would be insufficient but not for what you are talking about.

Try again when you feel like seeing what I actually did say or want to address something within 12 hours or so.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by turbofan

 

Ya know, turbofan (and Lillydale, since this involves you too...just reference the post of "turbo's" that I'm replying here) ---

I fail to see how your reply has anything to do with me. Fight your own battles over there. Stop blowing smoke screens.

reply to post by spy66

...how the CIA and FBI actually know without doubt that it was the accused hijackers that really flew the airliners.

Ah. No, it MUST have been specially hand-picked U.S. "patriots" who were willing to die for their country???

Who saw them actually siting in the cockpit flying the jets?

Rhetorical? NO...of course the implications that abound about hijackers must all be discounted....so, so sad....

Mmm... Did they brush their fingerprints of the flight stick to confirm this or what?

Ah...not a stupid question, just insensitive attempt at sarcasm. Cute.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Ah. No, it MUST have been specially hand-picked U.S. "patriots" who were willing to die for their country???

Not an answer, more deflection.

Rhetorical? NO...of course the implications that abound about hijackers must all be discounted....so, so sad....

Still not an answer, just deflection.

Ah...not a stupid question, just insensitive attempt at sarcasm. Cute.

What was the point here? A legitimate question was asked. You obviously have no answer so instead of ignoring it, you reply with obnoxious empty rhetoric? Sad really. How do you know that the supposed hijackers were flying the plane? They are not mentioned in the autopsy you seem to believe so much in.

reply to post by K J Gunderson

I knew you were not really a pilot so it is quite a relief to read that I was way off.

You seem so sure.

Please enlighten everyone as to your qualifications to make that assessment, and then state it so positively.

Facts. Please.

Show instances where you KNOW for a fact that anything I've written has not been factual, and completely from the perspective that ONLY a pilot would understand....OH!!! Maybe THAT'S your problem? Because, IF you are not a pilot, you are in NO POSITION to make a judgement on my qualifications, or abilities, based solely on your layperson's perspective.

Perhaps I should have tried to dumb it down more...but that would have been unfair to the majority of people reading who can understand. Shame you can't see that.

Originally posted by Lillydale

I fail to see how your reply has anything to do with me. Fight your own battles over there. Stop blowing smoke screens.

Funny, I thought this thread was about "What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01" and not about Ultima1, oops I mean Lillydale.

reply to post by Lillydale


Hold up, there Missy!!!

If you could not see the idiocy in that post then I am sorry.

Those were not "valid" questions, and I responded to them in the vein I felt they were "asked".

SARCASTICALLY.

Anyone who's followed any of this knows the amount of evidence to support the hijackers' presence...I have told how it's HAD TO BE a Human moving certain cockpit controls...so WHO ELSE would fly a suicide mission???

reply to post by weedwhacker


You have a deal. I will come through with all that the second you start. Where is that proof of DNA that survived thousands of degrees for days? Where are those passengers found in seats? Where is your explanation for no Arabs in the supposed autopsy results? Where is your proof for whatever reason for the absence of wings you are going with today? Where is your proof that you are a pilot? I am sure I will enjoy watching you try to turn this around. Have fun spinning.

reply to post by gavron


Oh, you noticed something I didn't!!!!!

Star for you!!!!!

making moe sense, now........hmmmmmmmmmmm

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by Lillydale

I fail to see how your reply has anything to do with me. Fight your own battles over there. Stop blowing smoke screens.

Funny, I thought this thread was about "What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01" and not about Ultima1, oops I mean Lillydale.

LOL, um....Ultima1 was a debunker, was he not?

Ah, I just went and looked. You are saying I am the pathological "NSA worker?" OK! Either one of you start a thread all about it. Not only am I not ultima, we do not even agree on an awful lot of things. LOL. You guys are cute. I am also a much much better writer. If having this fantasy makes you feel superior, then go for it. If you need to avoid the topic in order to feel like you might be right about something, I can understand. If I was getting pummeled this badly on the actual subject, I would be tossing it in that corner too.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Lillydale]