Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 911files

 

Don't believe me ... try the math for a pull-up at the last few seconds to avoid hitting the Pentagon.

I'm not talking about that..
I'm saying flying low and fast...Forget the Pentagon...

Well, seeing as how I am responding to you ....

Originally posted by backinblack
You or any other pilot on here has come nowhere near the flight conditions that eventuated on flight77..

What other building did "flight77" hit?

reply to post by 911files


Mate, I said "flight conditions" that's all..
End discussion because obviously you are not on the same page...

reply to post by 911files


Or, none of the pilots have flown in those conditions because it is severely against regulation, and it is likely you will crash into something at that altitude. The plane that hit the pentagon did crash into something... the pentagon.

I do recall a video of some swiss guys who got a guy to hit the pentagon on his first try.

I couldn't find it, but I found a far better video showing a simulation and backing up everything with pictures and video evidence:

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 911files

 

Mate, I said "flight conditions" that's all..
End discussion because obviously you are not on the same page...

I'm sure 911Files will agree with that. You are not even on the same planet as him with regard to whether or not AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon, never mind the same page. I don't blame you for running away with tail tucked behind. I don't blame anyone for escaping embarrassment, it's a perfectly natural human trait.......

reply to post by Reheat

I'm sure 911Files will agree with that. You are not even on the same planet as him with regard to whether or not AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon, never mind the same page. I don't blame you for running away with tail tucked behind. I don't blame anyone for escaping embarrassment, it's a perfectly natural human trait.......

What a stupid post of nothing..

Twisting words as USUAL...
I didn't say I was running anywhere, except maybe to work..
Not a problem for you, you're already there..

I'm discussing the effects of the flight conditions on the plane and whether the pilot had control or what he had to do to keep control..
If the OS is to believed then he was in pretty good control to the end..

Originally posted by backinblackor what he had to do to keep control.

Get the target in the middle of the windscreen, thrustlevers to the walls and manipulate the yoke to keep it there.

Originally posted by backinblack
If the OS is to believed then he was in pretty good control to the end..

So, you're telling us it's difficult to crash. I seriously doubt there is any sane pilot in the world who would support that premise. Your comments just keep getting goofier. You better run along to work before all of us are rolling on the floor laughing....

reply to post by Reheat

So, you're telling us it's difficult to crash. I seriously doubt there is any sane pilot in the world who would support that premise. Your comments just keep getting goofier. You better run along to work before all of us are rolling on the floor laughing....

I thought you said you were here to convince people..

I've asked you to point out where I have posted BS, CRAP and now GOOFY COMMENTS..

Care to show me??
Or is it more of the off topic rants with zero facts ??
They don't convince anyone..

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen

Originally posted by backinblackor what he had to do to keep control.

Get the target in the middle of the windscreen, thrustlevers to the walls and manipulate the yoke to keep it there.

Correct. Apparently, he and others think it was really aimed with precision. What you've described would merely require nothing more than homing to hit the largest office building in the world. I am amazed to read that the pilot had his airplane under control when it crashed. That a new one for my joke book!

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 911files

 

Don't believe me ... try the math for a pull-up at the last few seconds to avoid hitting the Pentagon.

I'm not talking about that..
I'm saying flying low and fast...Forget the Pentagon...

Low and fast? The plane was in a dive right to impact. Pilots fly low all the time, it is a requirement of landing. So low is out the window as a skill that pilots can't do.

Fast, it is easier to fly faster, but for landing flying fast is failure, you will not pass your check-ride if you fly fast trying to land, you will be rejected.

Flying fast on 911 for 77? The terrorist pilot was over Vmo for 20 seconds and then he crashed. This is not skill, it is called death, crash, bad.

Did the terrorist pilot pull 7gs? I have been over Vmo. Darn, pilots have done what the terrorist have, and better. The terrorist flew so bad he could not keep the wings level. During the final turn he was erratic, sloppy turn.

Did the terrorists reach MACH1? Other pilots have and brought back their bent aircraft. Reheat has flown over MACH1, and so have I. Looks like the terrorists are failed pilots, who can't do much more than murder and crash.

Looking at the FDR, we see the terrorist pilot was in a PIO, so bad he would have crashed anyway. Have you looked at the erratic control shown in the FDR? Have flown to see how easy it is to fly? Tried to get time in a simulator like the terrorists did? Have you refuted the DNA evidence for Flight 77 passengers and told the people who lost loved ones?

reply to post by iSunTzu

Did the terrorists reach MACH1? Other pilots have and brought back their bent aircraft. Reheat has flown over MACH1, and so have I. Looks like the terrorists are failed pilots, who can't do much more than murder and crash.

Back to the fighter jet BS which is irrelevant..
BTW, some of those family members of the lost loved ones are also calling for a new investigation..
Hell, even some that wrote the frikin OS fairytale are asking for a new investigation..

Originally posted by Meesterjojo
.....
Folks: This is why college students can't use "Google.com" as a source for their reports. Do some real homework, get information directly from as many sources as possible. I really shouldn't have to repeat this every time a thread like this is started.

Actually, the reason "google.com" can not be used as a source is simply because "google.com" doesn't provide information. "google.com" simply aids you in finding what you are searching for. The reference would identify the site found with the service offered by Google.

It seems like when this all happened I saw the unedited version of the surveillance video and couldn't help but think something other than a plane was involved...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by iSunTzu

 

Did the terrorists reach MACH1? Other pilots have and brought back their bent aircraft. Reheat has flown over MACH1, and so have I. Looks like the terrorists are failed pilots, who can't do much more than murder and crash.

Back to the fighter jet BS which is irrelevant.

We're talking about transport category airplanes here, like the B747, 777 and 737. Mach1 have been reached during recovery from upset and plane landed where everyone survived.

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by iSunTzu

 

Did the terrorists reach MACH1? Other pilots have and brought back their bent aircraft. Reheat has flown over MACH1, and so have I. Looks like the terrorists are failed pilots, who can't do much more than murder and crash.

Back to the fighter jet BS which is irrelevant.

We're talking about transport category airplanes here, like the B747, 777 and 737. Mach1 have been reached during recovery from upset and plane landed where everyone survived.

But, he thinks there is something magical about "thick air" and all of the lift that would be produced at low altitude. Many here are truly swimming upstream in something thick, but it ain't air! They're not using a paddle either!

Originally posted by Reheat
you can look at a small number of photographs, many shot from hundreds of yards away with a telephoto lens...

Please learn from this...

You contintually say that same line, that the photos are from a telephoto lens hundreds of yards away. You clearly don't know the purpose of a telephoto lens so I'm going to provide an explanation. A telephoto lens magnifies the subject, sort of like a telescope. If someone uses a telephoto lens and has a good camera you can get EXCELLENT results. Take this picture for example... as you like to mention it's from a telephoto lens from hundreds of yards away...



This is a typical high resolution, high quality picture and I had to reduce it to 20% of it's size just to make it fit on ATS, AND I zoomed in about half way to see the detail shown in the upper right. The detail shows the fireman's hand and that he is making a fist... PLENTY of detail.

I hope you found this valuable information and that you'll stop using the tag line "from a telephoto lens and hundreds of yards away" because it just makes you look either A) ignorant to what you mean or B) trying to purposefully devalue information that is valid.

reply to post by Varemia


Varemia, you are almost correct.....just off a bit on the details. NOW.....this is something that many "9/11 truthers" ALSO get wrong....the details, I mean. Which is WHY we try to keep the facts on course.

Here, is a segment from a nearly hour-long DUTCH TV documentary. (If anyone speaks Dutch, please feel free to chime in and verify the ENGLISH subtitles).

This clip opens with a segment where that APPALLING piece of crap "Loose Change" gets ripped a new hole....but, eventually it gets to the simulator demonstration, of a rather low-time pilot re-creating what Hani Hanjour did.....THREE TIMES!!.



Please, feel free to make a note of this, and spread it around to the "unbelievers"....(AKA, the so-called "9/11 truthers")....

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by backinblack
Why do you spend hours trying to convince us what you know to be truth?
Your posts don't sound like the caring type, so why ????

I'm not trying to convince you of a damn thing. Nothing. However, if I convince even 1 or 2 lurkers from believing the BS you and others peddle, it will have been worthwhile.....

I find this hilarious because there are three or four OSers fighting and nit-picking tiny parts of some possibility, trying to insult someone because of a typo... all the while this has become the single-most flagged thread in ATS history concerning the Pentagon... BACKFIRE!!

it really means that 220+ people have viewed this thread and said, thanks! those pictures rock and I'm happy to see someone fighting for justace... and then there's 3 or 4 people saying "you're WRONG!! Justice is spelled with an 'i'"

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat
you can look at a small number of photographs, many shot from hundreds of yards away with a telephoto lens...

Please learn from this...

Thanks for the lesson in photo analysis. Yes, I did learn something. I learned that is that you can show photographs to show what you want to show and think you've made a valid point.

Show something else to me, please. Find a fireman or any other easily identifiable object behind that water spray near the building and show the same detail as your zoomed in example. While you at it, zoom into all of that debris lying up next to the building behind the spray and under lots of foam with enough detail to determine what it is.

Also, while were looking at detail, what caused the obvious damage to the area of the wall above and to the right of the water spray. You should be able to see those chunks of missing concrete. Then explain what type of explosive one might use inside a building that would cause that kind of damage to the outside surface of the wall.

While you're at it, what type of explosive would make an obvious long line of kinetic energy damage to the inside.as show in diagrams I'm sure you've seen. I guess all of those guys on the Building Performance Study were deceived or are lying, Which do you think it was? If you can think of another reason that I can't please list it.

reply to post by Varemia


That is an excellent video. Thanks for sharing it. I wish they had shown the lack of damage to the wall where they suggested the airplane went through, because the pictures shown in the OP of this thread show there are no holes there...

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by backinblack
Why do you spend hours trying to convince us what you know to be truth?
Your posts don't sound like the caring type, so why ????

I'm not trying to convince you of a damn thing. Nothing. However, if I convince even 1 or 2 lurkers from believing the BS you and others peddle, it will have been worthwhile.....

I find this hilarious because there are three or four OSers fighting and nit-picking tiny parts of a possibility, trying to insult someone because of a typo... all the while this has become this single-most flagged thread in ATS history concerning the Pentagon... BACKFIRE!!

it really means that 220+ people have viewed this thread and said, thanks! those pictures rock and I'm happy to see someone fighting for justace... and then there's 3 or 4 people saying "you're WRONG!! Justice is spelled with an 'i'"

Very nice APPEAL TO POPULARITY FALLACY. You're just full of them today, aren't you.

What would one expect from a Conspiracy oriented Web Site for something which confirms confusion, misperceptions, and delusions. It obviously impresses you, but not the REAL WORLD. I dare you to take those to a reputable news agency anywhere in the Western World and ask them to publish them on their front page with the same preposterous headline as in this thread. Come on, any news agency in the Western World would covet a Pulitzer Prize for Journalism.

Fighting for Justice is for a Court of Law not a silly Conspiracy Forum on an obscure Web Site. Every single 9/11 related Law Suit contending the same crap you're promoting here has been laughed out of the Court House. Come on, be different. Do something. Go ahead and fight for your version of Justice. Who's stopping you?

Want a list of all of those Court Cases? They are quite easily found if you look. If you question me about them I WILL post the summary of a few just to embarrass you.