It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

page: 9
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JPhish
 


Well....from experience in the simulator on the rare occasion when there was a lax bit of time in the schedule to fool around, it is really not that hard to pick a point, aim at and hit it. I've "hit" buildings in "flight"...flwon under "bridges"...all the normal things you do when the simulator is a novel fun toy...but, you soon grow tired of that. I mean, the novelty wears off quickly.

Hitting a particular point...say, on the ground for instance...well, that's really what a landing is, after all. Just at slower speeds, of course!!

I learned to fly in the civilian world...do not have perfect 20/20 uncorrect vision, so military fighters were not going to be an option. Correctable to 20/20 is perfectly acceptable, though, for the airlines (and even for military, ONCE you get in!)

Anyway, from working with and getting to know ex-mil colleagues from the various branches, the absolutely most demanding thing in aviation is probably a carrier landing...especially at night.

But, even in day....you have two moving targets, the airplane and the ship. It's purely visual, no electronic guidance to help, there is a light system (the 'meatball') to aid in the approach glideslope to the correct touchdown point to grab the arresting cable (well, there are three, just in case...).

BUT....the big ole' Pentagon, sitting there and not moving? Not hard at all. Unfortunately.


Well weed, I am glad to read this post of yours above.
I have read your exposes' of your flying ability.
I always came up with the thought that you flew the elite on EL AL and had no combat experience.
I was always to embarrassed for you, to ask.
Simulators are how we faked the moon landings. Vietnam fighter pilots is where we separated the men from the boys.The over whelming number of aircraft mishaps occur on approach and or takeoff. Even by the best trained and experienced pilots.
First tell me in how many times these supposed terrorists landed a sizeable jet airliner? Any freakin jet.
Ya know like in REALITY. And when you do,
I might just try to muster a positive thought in the direction of your concern for the Facts of the 911 TRAGEDIES.
No one ever flew a 757 under a bridge at 500 mph.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Donny 4 million]




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to weedwhacker's post #160

Perhaps I'm not as knowledgeable concerning these things as JPhish, but your credentials sound impressive enough to me. However, I've spoken and listened to a few professional pilots and pilot instructors who don't believe that any known plane could have pulled off the official story's flight path, over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

The problem was not, as JPhish suggests, to hit the pentagon; Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, came up with many ways that the pentagon could have been hit. Rather, the problem was that in order for the plane to have both cleared the VDOT antenna, strike the light poles and come in low and level to hit the pentagon, the plane would have had to have pulled out of a 10 g dive; hardly something that a 757 could have accomplished. And this is only if we disregard the alleged flight 77 flight data; if we take that into account, the plane would have to have pulled out of a -34- g dive, which I really don't think -any- aircraft could pull off. As Rob Balsamo, in the Pilots for 9/11 Truth video, 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon narrates, starting at 8:52:


Placing the aircraft on the south path, lowered from the FDR altitude of 699 feet above sea level at this point in space to the top of the VDOT antenna, we can examine the pull up needed at pole 1 and measure the radius using a 3 point ark radius tool provided with this 3d animation software program.

Remember, the scale of this presentation is 100 feet= 1 cm box. To get an idea of how we demonstrate this in 3d software, we switch to an orthogonal view. An orthogonal view is different than a perspective view in that it eliminates the effect of distance from a viewpoint. Therefore, we can accurately determine radius of an ark and precisely draw an ark based on the pull up needed in this view.

Here is the ark drawn in the orthogonal view. We will remove the topography and obstacles in order to get a better view of the ark drawn. Again, we we will demonstrate the accuracy of the scale and topography at the end of this presentation.

The radius of this ark is 20.85 centimeters. But remember the scale of this presentation is 1 cm= 100 ft. So we need to multiply 100 to 20.85 and we get a radius of 2,085 feet.

With the radius, we can use a simple formula required for measuring acceleration as "a = v^2 / r". This is the proper formula to use for such a problem.


Using the velocity as provided by the NTSB for both scenarios, 781 f/s, we need to square that, then divide by 2085, to get 292.5 f/s squared. We then divide that by 32 f/s squared to get 9.14 G.

[The math involved]:
781*781 = 609,961
609,961/2085 = 292.5 f/s squared
292.5 f/s squared/32 f/s squared = 9.14G

G force calculation for this pull up equals 9.14 Gs. We also need to add 1 G for earth's gravity, for a total of 10.14 Gs required.

Transport category aircraft are limited to 2.5 positive Gs. Although a 757 could perhaps withstand more G forces then 2.5, it's highly unlikely it could withstand more than 5 or 6.

Remember, this calculation is for the least challenging pull. If we hypothetically lower the aircraft altitude from the NTSB plotted altitude, to the lower height of the VDOT antenna.

As we can see G loads required to pull out of a dive from the top of the VDOT antenna are impossible for a 757. It is off the charts if we account for altitude as plotted and produced by the NTSB.

Placing the aircraft at the FDR altitude, the most challenging pull, we can measure the radius of the ark needed to pull out of such a dive.

Again, we switch to the orthogonal view, for accurate measurements and we get a radius of 576.9 feet.

781*781 = 609,961
609,961/576.9 = 1057.3
1,057.3/32 = 33Gf

Plugging that radius into the same formula, and adding 1 g for earth's gravity, we get 34 Gs.

Impossible.

This is the proper way to determine G loads in a 2 dimensional problem.


[edit on 21-9-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Balsamo is bad news. All the double happies (John Lear et al) have congregated over at 'pilots for 911 bulldust' and are up to their usual disinformation tricks. Any of the respectable websites like AE911truth, 911review.com(not those .org idiots), 911research.wtc7.net etc have taken 'pilots for 911 rubbish' off of their links pages.'

Can you guys stop cluttering up these pages with meaningless rhetoric. Damn annoying. We just need the facts.

The plane was seen to hit the building by many credible witnesses. There WAS wreckage...there WERE bodies...there WAS luggage. All quite easy to verify.

Anyone new to this subject please read this paper in it's entirety. It is an expose of the ridiculous fly over theory advocated by the ridiculous CIT group:

911review.com...


Weedwhacker, I believe you when you say you could fly into the pentagon but do you think our official suspects being as inexperienced as they were could have done it? I personally like the remote control theory. That seems like the easiest option to me.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


thanks for responding WW but you didn't answer the question . . . how many times out of 100 do you think would you hit your mark?

and take it easy guys, weedwacker was gracious enough to give his credentials and attempt to answer my question. There is no reason to berate him. YET


[edit on 9/22/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
jthomas

If there is no official story, are you suggesting that there is *No Official Truth* regarding 9/11 because there is no narrative?



There is the evidence. You know, all that evidence that 9/11 truth kiddies deny exists so they can claim, dismissively, that there is only an official "story"



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by talisman
jthomas

If there is no official story, are you suggesting that there is *No Official Truth* regarding 9/11 because there is no narrative?



There is the evidence. You know, all that evidence that 9/11 truth kiddies deny exists so they can claim, dismissively, that there is only an official "story"



Right, so now you are talking about "evidence" as if it is not part of the Official Narrative.

That is not answering my question.

You said there is "No Official Story."

So according to you there is "No Official Truthful Narrative" regarding 9/11.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 



thanks for responding WW but you didn't answer the question . . . how many times out of 100 do you think would you hit your mark?


Thanks.

I thought I answered the intent of the question, if not the specifics.

However...I really don't understand the point of "how many times out of 100".

One time is good enough.

Let me see if I can describe to non-pilots what it looks like from a cockpit perspective:

IF you can see your 'target' in the windshield (a runway...or, in this case, a building) as long as you maneuver to keep it in sight, you can continue to aim at it. It's just a matter of continual minor adjustments...I mean, for a poor analogy, say you're in your car and you want to hit a bridge abutment. Steer, right/left as needed....

Add one more dimension, altitude.

IF, as you watch your intended spot, it moves UP in your field of view, you are undershooting it. Obviously, the opposite is true if it moves DOWN, below your nose...all things like your pitch attitude being mostly the same, except for the minimal adjustments.

EVERY landing, this phenomenom is seen. It is harder to describe than to 'see', and teach and learn. It becomes second nature to a pilot.

Now...that "100 times" question?

Let's say it's BEFORE 9/11...and you have the money, and find a company willing to let you fly a simulator. OK? You can do anything you want (except damage the machine) because you're paying by the hour for the pleasure. IF you wished to line up and "hit" a building in the simulation, then every time you did it, over and over again, I expect you'd get bored very quickly. Because it is so friggin' easy.

(BTW...simulators, when they "crash", usually freeze to prevent damage to the motion mechanism....the hydraulic lifters, pistons and electronics. SO, if you wanna do these "crashes" into buildings, you do it with the motion turned off).

I've dragged out this video before, because it demonstrates quite well how even a non-pilot can actually land a simulator, with a little coaching.

I figure everyone agrees that the singer Ricky Martin isn't a professional airline pilot?? Now, this video of course has the instructor there, he is configuring the gear and flaps/slats, all the bits...and just providing guidance to Ricky. NOW, put an actual pilot, even one from light planes, into the seat...he already knows how to land, he doesn't have to understand all the other procedures specific to that airplane......

This is of course, at slow, normal approach speeds....but, at higher speeds, the principle is the same, it just happens a little faster...



I think this was done for some 'tweens' show....but, if you live near Luton, UK...and have some disposable income, YOU TOO can have fun in the simulator! (Assuming they're still offering it...)
_____________________________________________________________

I went to check..."Virtual Aviation UK" still offers the simulator...at Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow.

www.virtualaviation.co.uk...

Looked up a "One-hour 'shared experience'" --- 284 pounds sterling...what, about $400???

I'm guessing there are at least TWO of you, so you each get 30 minutes...just a guess.

They also offer "exclusive" experiences....two hours for 1094 pounds. Hey, that's a bargain! Check their website....

From the website:


You’ll forget you’re in a simulator.

Imagine yourself on the flightdeck… one hand on the controls, the other on the thrust levers, bumping over the runway lights as you taxi into the take-off position. Feel the immense power pushing you into your seat as your jet airliner tears down the runway, and the slight sinking in your stomach as you raise the nose and lift your huge aircraft into the air. Take one last glance at the city falling away beneath you as you cut through the clouds into the clear blue sky above.


Wow! Such hyperbole! What salesmanship!




Fly all over the world.

You’re the Captain, and where you fly is up to you. Would you like to fly a challenging approach into Innsbruck in a snowstorm? After that, perhaps a scenic descent into the Caribbean at sunset. There’s a whole world of options, and the choice is yours.

**skip**

Wide range of aircraft types.

With unrivalled access to the largest full-motion simulator fleet in Europe, we have lots of Airbus and Boeing simulators for you to choose from. Please see the Locations & Simulators page for a full listing.


Looks like they have access to at least eight sims, depends on location...

I saw the A-320, A-330/340 (even though one has two engines, the other has four, they share other commonality), the B737-300, -700/800, -400 -- the B757/767 (Again, commonality), a DC-10...and, (hard to believe??) a B787!!! Shoot! I'd pay double to get my hands on that!


Lots of dates to choose from.

We run over 200 simulator flights each month, so you’ll always have plenty of dates and times to choose from. And if you can’t find a convenient date in our online schedules, just call us on 01799 530105 and we’ll book an extra date specially for you.


(I tried to cut the photo from their website...but you can see that yourselves...)


(Maybe we can book an ATS junket...and film it?)

Cheap flights over the 'Pond' to the UK....



[edit on 22 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


Sorry, scott...

Balsamo, et al, for all theit "calculations" are just blowing smoke.

They start from what they have already assumed to have been "impossible", then work it to justify their claims. Instead of looking at REAL data.

Lots of red herrings in there, used to confuse.....

Look...there was no "10-g" pull up, alright?? There was no need for one.

Balsamo and Friends are talking out of their solid food dispensers....



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


I will not respond to your veiled insults, and trolling methods in kind. Your attitude is on display for all to see.


Simulators are how we faked the moon landings.


That, in itself, shoots your credibility to ZERO!!! But, not to let you off so easily:



Vietnam fighter pilots is where we separated the men from the boys.


Nonsense. That one is specious. WWII. Korea. ALL sides, not just the "good guys". (BTW, I have a friend, USAF F-4s in Vietnam...retired Alaska Airlines...)

John McCain, 'crack' Vietnam-era fighter pilot? Crashed three times.... (edit---MORE than three....)

AND, not to beat up on McCain -- since that isn't what this is about, STILL he managed to "graduate" from Flight School, and serve - even though he "wasn't very good" as a pilot, and "didn't love flying."


Navy pilot John Sidney McCain III should have never been allowed to
graduate from the U.S. Navy flight school. He was a below average
student and a lousy pilot. Had his father and grandfather not been
famous four star U.S. Navy admirals, McCain III would have never been
allowed in the cockpit of a military aircraft.
**skip**

During his relative short stunt on flight status, McCain III lost five
U.S. Navy aircraft
, four in accidents and one in combat.


(Well...we'll forgive the one lost "in combat". He paid dearly for that.)


Robert Timberg, author of The Nightingale's Song, a book about
Annapolis graduates and their tours in Vietnam, wrote that McCain
"learned to fly at Pensacola, though his performance was below par, at
best good enough to get by. He liked flying, but didn't love it."


Reminds me of a certain ANG dude...who was AWOL most of the time...


McCain III lost jet number one in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus
Christi Bay while practicing landings. He was knocked unconscious by
the impact coming to as the plane settled to the bottom.

McCain's second crash occurred while he was deployed in the
Mediterranean. "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula," Timberg
wrote, "he took out some power lines which led to a spate of newspaper
stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an
admiral."


OK, that one is likely from hotshotting....it happens.


McCain's third crash three occurred when he was returning from flying
a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game.

Timberg reported that McCain radioed, "I've got a flameout" and went
through standard relight procedures three times before ejecting at one
thousand feet. McCain landed on a deserted beach moments before the
plane slammed into a clump of trees.


OK...without more info, possibly not his fault. ALTHOUGH, a flameout could have been from fuel exhaustion/improper fuel management. Since he couldn't get a re-light on three tries. I'm not accusing, because I don't know....


McCain's fourth aircraft loss occurred July 29, 1967, soon after he
was assigned to the USS Forrestal as an A-4 Skyhawk pilot. While
seated in the cockpit of his aircraft waiting his turn for takeoff, an
accidently fired rocket slammed into McCain's plane. He escaped from
the burning aircraft, but the explosions that followed killed 134
sailors, destroyed at least 20 aircraft, and threatened to sink the
ship.


OK! THAT one doesn't count. Not his fault, at all.


McCain's fifth loss happened during his 23rd mission over North
Vietnam on Oct. 26, 1967, when McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was shot down by a surface-to-air missile.
**skip**

"McCain had roughly 20 hours in combat," explains Bill Bell, a veteran
of Vietnam and former chief of the U.S. Office for POW/MIA Affairs --
the first official U.S. representative in Vietnam since the 1973 fall
of Saigon. "Since McCain got 28 medals," Bell continues, "that equals
out to about a medal-and-a-half for each hour he spent in combat.
There were infantry guys -- grunts on the ground -- who had more than
7,000 hours in combat and I can tell you that there were times and
situations where I'm sure a prison cell would have looked pretty good
to them by comparison. The question really is how many guys got that
number of medals for not being shot down."

Source

OK....so, goes to show that not ALL combat pilots in Vietnam were the 'topguns' you'd like to think...nothing against any who have served, but to suggest that Vietnam "separated the men from the boys" is pure rubbish, sorry.



The over whelming number of aircraft mishaps occur on approach and or takeoff.


Yes. AND, your point? Oh, you don't have one. You mention the majority of 'mishaps' occur near the ground....figured out why, yet?



[edit on 22 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by talisman
jthomas

If there is no official story, are you suggesting that there is *No Official Truth* regarding 9/11 because there is no narrative?



There is the evidence. You know, all that evidence that 9/11 truth kiddies deny exists so they can claim, dismissively, that there is only an official "story"



Right, so now you are talking about "evidence" as if it is not part of the Official Narrative.


Read more carefully. The 9/11 Truth Movement does not talk about the "evidence." They dismiss the evidence. They say it doesn't exist, it's made up, part of a "false-flag, pre-planned operation", that it's just an "official story" and, as such, can be ignored.

Jezus's response I quoted is one such perfect example.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by talisman

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by talisman
jthomas

If there is no official story, are you suggesting that there is *No Official Truth* regarding 9/11 because there is no narrative?



There is the evidence. You know, all that evidence that 9/11 truth kiddies deny exists so they can claim, dismissively, that there is only an official "story"



Right, so now you are talking about "evidence" as if it is not part of the Official Narrative.


Read more carefully. The 9/11 Truth Movement does not talk about the "evidence." They dismiss the evidence. They say it doesn't exist, it's made up, part of a "false-flag, pre-planned operation", that it's just an "official story" and, as such, can be ignored.

Jezus's response I quoted is one such perfect example.








I am not talking about what the 9/11 Truth Movement says.

You say there is NO OFFICIAL STORY

You claim there is EVIDENCE

Your claiming that the "EVIDENCE" is not part of the "OFFICIAL NARRATIVE"

Your claiming there is NO OFFICIAL NARRATIVE.

So in essensce there is NO OFFICIAL NARRATIVE CONCERNING 9/11 that IS TRUTHFUL.

You must realize that you are the one separating the narrative from the evidence.

Evidence has no meaning without somekind of narrative attached to it.

Admit that you see the OFFICIAL NARRATIVE as the NARRATIVE that Interpets the "evidence" correctly as you see the data.

If you don't admit that then you have No Official Truthful Narrative concerning the events in question. And as I have said, "Evidence" without a "Narrative" is meaningless.





[edit on 22-9-2009 by talisman]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwiffler
stop cluttering up these pages with meaningless rhetoric. Damn annoying. We just need the facts.

The plane was seen to hit the building by many credible witnesses. There WAS wreckage...there WERE bodies...there WAS luggage. All quite easy to verify.

Anyone new to this subject please read this paper in it's entirety. It is an expose of the ridiculous fly over theory advocated by the ridiculous CIT group:



Talk about annoying.
The above is a blatant dis - information statement.
No one can claim an in court, cross- examined 911 fact---- period.
No government, no group, no camp, no individual.
This is why ALL 911 rhetoric is pure speculation and hence a CONSPIRACY.
That is WHY a REINVESTIGATION is the only matter of consequence on these threads. Anything else is anti-American dis-information

From Dictionary.com
Usage Note: Fact has a long history of usage in the sense "allegation of fact," as in "This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong" (Albert Shanker). This practice has led to the introduction of the phrases true facts and real facts, as in The true facts of the case may never be known. These usages may occasion qualms among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages are often useful for emphasis.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Read more carefully. The 9/11 Truth Movement does not talk about the "evidence." They dismiss the evidence. They say it doesn't exist, it's made up, part of a "false-flag, pre-planned operation", that it's just an "official story" and, as such, can be ignored.


I seem to recall asking you 3 times already to answer my post to you regarding LACK OF VIDEO EVIDENCE. It's not like my posts are invisible or something, considering some people have starred them. So I can only be forced to conclude that you don't have an answer or that you haven't thought up a decent enough excuse yet.

Your above statement couldn't be more wrong if you tried. I AM talking about the evidence. The lack of video evidence CLEARLY showing a jet airliner slamming into the Pentagon. I am saying that video evidence other than the 5 frames the public has seen DOES EXIST and that it is being hidden from us because it actually will clearly show something OTHER THAN a jet airliner hitting the Pentagon.

Keep digging that hole mate.
Hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to work we go.....

[edit on 22/9/2009 by Kryties]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weed this is what you missed in the last quote.

First tell me in how many times these supposed terrorists landed a sizeable jet airliner? Any freakin jet.
Ya know like in REALITY. And when you do,
I might just try to muster a positive thought in the direction of your concern for the Facts of the 911 TRAGEDIES.
No one ever flew a 757 under a bridge at 500 mph.

These are the things that are pertinent.
I guess I should have stipulated Jet aircraft to enable you to understand my remark about the Nam pilots.

Do you have more piolots to pan? I said pilots not just one.
And since Jets are the only aircraft in this discussion. There were so very, very few in combat prior to 1965.
And gosh It would seems like you could start your own thread on Mc Cain.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


*face/palm*

Here we go----


this is what you missed in the last quote.


OK. Won't miss it now...


First tell me in how many times these supposed terrorists landed a sizeable jet airliner? Any freakin jet.


I have no idea. I never asked them. BUT, first you tell me what landing a 'sizeable jet liner' has to do with the events of 9/11.

Even a freakin' jet. Your question is illogical.

NOW...rather than a back-and-forth on that minior issue, how about this? I'm going to guess that YOU think it's harder to land a jet, any 'freakin' jet than a 'freakin' Piper or Cessna. Is THAT you point? Because I can think of no other reason to ask that. IF that's your intent, then it clearly shows a complete lack of understanding of airplanes on your part.

Freakin' Ricky Martin, la vida loca!!! Or, did you miss that???



I might just try to muster a positive thought in the direction of your concern for the Facts of the 911 TRAGEDIES.


Oh, I have great concern for the FACTS of the 9/11 tragedies. THAT IS WHY I'm sick and tired of the falsehoods being spouted.

The effects of a terrorist cell successfully carrying out the attacks. Fortunately, one airplane failed. WHY DOES NO ONE take that into account??? That alone should tell most logical thinkers that this wasn't a "false flag" intentional super-secret Black OP. AT BEST, it was an inept bunch of people in BOTH Administrations, and at the Intel organizations, who fouled up. At WORST, and this is what the investigations should be focused on, it was an INTENTIONAL 'let-it-happen' complicity among certain factions in the Gov't.

THIS nonsense, here...about all of the how many, now? Dozens of different "theories" diverts focus from finding out the truth of the ineptitude, or the criminal negligence.

You guys have no idea --- you have no idea how it has changed the airline business.



No one ever flew a 757 under a bridge at 500 mph.



To use the word of the day....who 'freakin' cares??? THAT is such a non sequitor I can't believe it was even mentioned. MY fault, I suppose...for illustrating an example of what CAN be done in the simulator, quite easily. Sheesh!!!

Well...then you prattle on about Jet fighters in 'Nam, again. AS IF it's some big voodoo thing, that dogfights in jets are emblamatic of "better" pilots than the Aces of other wars....BTW, there WERE jets in Korea!!!

But...if you'd care to search out and watch some of the documentaries about dogfighting, you will possibly learn a thing or two.

Fighting in jets at 500+ knots is NOT the same as a P-51 and a Messerschmidt tangling, for instance. Takes MORE skill in the older airplanes, you betcha!



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 



Originally posted by mrwiffler
Balsamo is bad news. All the double happies (John Lear et al) have congregated over at 'pilots for 911 bulldust' and are up to their usual disinformation tricks. Any of the respectable websites like AE911truth, 911review.com(not those .org idiots), 911research.wtc7.net etc have taken 'pilots for 911 rubbish' off of their links pages.'


I disagree with your assessment of PFT. I know that some there can be prickly; I myself have been banned from their site until December. But I have found that they have a lot of good information, even if they are somewhat touchy when one brings up arguments against their case.



Originally posted by mrwiffler
The plane was seen to hit the building by many credible witnesses.


Name one.



Originally posted by mrwiffler
There WAS wreckage...


Most of which could easily be picked up by hand. Could easily be planted by hand as well.



Originally posted by mrwiffler
there WERE bodies...


Pentagon employees died at the pentagon, so yes, clearly, there were bodies that were found there. This doesn't mean that any of the bodies who allegedly boarded AA 77 were found at the scene.


Originally posted by mrwiffler
there WAS luggage. All quite easy to verify.


Hadn't heard of this, but how much luggage are we talking about here?



Originally posted by mrwiffler
Anyone new to this subject please read this paper in it's entirety. It is an expose of the ridiculous fly over theory advocated by the ridiculous CIT group:

911review.com...


I read a bit of it. Even created a counter to it, which I posted over at truthaction.org, a place that Victoria Ashley can be found as Victronix. The thread was deleted and I got a notice stating "Sorry, we're not hosting CIT debates here."

Anyway, I reposted my counter to some of its points here:
s1.zetaboards.com...



Originally posted by mrwiffler
Weedwhacker, I believe you when you say you could fly into the pentagon but do you think our official suspects being as inexperienced as they were could have done it? I personally like the remote control theory. That seems like the easiest option to me.


Easiest to contemplate, perhaps, but I would contend that when looked at closely, it's clear that the plane couldn't have hit the pentagon.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x
 


Sorry, scott...

Balsamo, et al, for all theit "calculations" are just blowing smoke.

They start from what they have already assumed to have been "impossible", then work it to justify their claims. Instead of looking at REAL data.


I have seen no evidence that this is the case. Can you offer any evidence to back up your claim?



Originally posted by weedwhackerLots of red herrings in there, used to confuse.....

Look...there was no "10-g" pull up, alright?? There was no need for one.


What draws you to this conclusion?



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to jthomas' post #155
 



Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to jthomas' post #148
 



Originally posted by jthomas


Would you mind if I have this reprinted in my Regional NWO Newsletter next month?


Let me guess; you're sarcastically asking if you could reprint it in your fictional New World Order Newsletter, that it :-p? I have heard that some -bloggers- are being paid by the government, but I haven't heard that any forum posters have been. Nevertheless, I wouldn't put it past those who were behind 9/11.


Gosh, that's spooky. Imagine Al Queda paying people to argue against 9/11 Twoofers who are on a 21st Century Crusade to Insult Muslims by claiming they "all live in caves" and couldn't possibly know how to pull off 9/11.


I'm not claiming they all lived in caves. Not only that, it would seem that he was a CIA asset not only during the Afghanistan conflict, but all the way up to 9/11, according to Sibel Edmonds. But we're digressing from the subject...



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

There is the evidence. You know, all that evidence that 9/11 truth kiddies deny exists so they can claim, dismissively, that there is only an official "story"



This is exactly why your entire argument is completely useless.

You claim others have no evidence to back up their claim, whether they make a claim or not. You have never backed up anything you have said.

You insist that there is no such thing as an "official story" and yet you ignore me every time I ask you what I should call the story told to us by officials.

Worst of all though, you do not get it. You are arguing a point that was never really made in order to avoid having to actually defend your BS. There is a reason that the term "official story" is in quotes. You have no idea why it is in quotes as evidenced by this post. You quoted 'story.' We all agree that it is actually a story. There is no debate about that. It is the 'official' part that is not taken so seriously.

This completely demonstrates who and what you are. You have no logic or independent thought. You have nothing to offer outside schoolyard taunts. You can repeat things like 'canard' 800 times but you cannot figure out how A and B fit together. Thank you for showing how little you understand one argument you have been trying to have for months. You do not even know what you are arguing about.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


lol you're never going to give me a strait answer are you ?


i really just want to know how many times out of one hundred you think you could hit the pentagon in.

If you feel uncomfortable answering the question that's fine, i understand . . .



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join