Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Your entire argument is based on conjecture supported entirely by a computer game, to try and prove that the pilot could have flown a 757 into the
Pentagon. Without recognizing it, you are actually arguing against your position that this feat was expedited by amateurs.
What?? Where in the hell do you get that clap trap from? Absolutely not!!! Do NOT put words in my mouth! You are obviously simply ignoring most of
what I post, as you haven't a clue what I have said in the past. You have been trying to make the point that the act was perpetrated by either a
professional pilot or remote control, saying it is impossible for someone without years of training to carry out such an act. My contention is that
you are wholly incorrect, as the individuals who flew the planes all had some flight training, and honed their skills on flight simulators. Most had
pilot’s licenses, so they were NOT neophytes as you claim. Here's a little info, and there is tons more out there about them.
What is the Runsfeld quote supposed to show? There is no question as to where the plane hit. Unfortunately, you continue to ignore the trajectory
issue, but you show that you are simply clueless on what is being presented. You prove is shortly yourself...I'll get to that...
So are you trying to say that the fire chief was saying that there WAS NO AIRCRAFT? Get real! You are picking and choosing what you post. The key in
that statement is "visible". He couldn't see any "large sections". Why? Perhaps many reasons such as the fact that the building has collapsed on
the wreckage and the aircraft was mostly disintegrated upon impact. This is the case with all those you quote talking about small pieces. Did you
expect to have the plane break in two? You are grasping at straws with this one.
DoD slide show on the impact of the craft. www.defenselink.mil... Note the trajectory of the aircraft was
upwards, not downwards. Slide 3 the title of the slide is, Illustration of Initial Impact.
Ok, I'm going to restrain myself here. When I first looked at the picture and what you wrote about the trajectory being "upwards", I had to go back
and forth a few times...then I just started laughing so hard I almost cried.
Are you kidding me? "...the trajectory of the aircraft was upwards, not downwards..." Do you realize how stupid that is? And how utterly impossible?
Is this a new kind of sub-terrainian aircraft?
The picture you refer to only shows the horizontal trajectory, not the vertical. But hey, that was a really funny one.
If you continue to disagree with the low height impact to the building, the shearing off of the light standards, then you are effectively saying the
Pentagon has been lying to us. Now I am open to finding the truth here. If in fact the craft did not knock down light standards, did not cause a man
to duck, and did not fly into the bottom floor as we can plainly see, then I have to believe that we are being lied to by Government and military
Again, you refuse to answer my questions as 1, you don't know the answers, and 2, the answers might not support your ridiculous claims. The eye
witness phenomenon I have already discussed. There is positive proof that people often exaggerate what they see, especially under duress.
How far was the witness standing from the building? How far are these "light standards" from the building? 10 feet? 20? 50? 100? How tall? 30 feet?
60? 80? It makes a HUGE difference, and to claim that because they were hit the trajectory was merely feet off the ground is ridiculous. Additionally,
you failed to address the link I posted that shows the aircraft and describes it as "diving very quickly". Ignoring things that don't support your
position, eh? Not surprising.
If it did do all of that, then I have to believe that since you would prefer to argue that the altitude was a figment of imagination, you agree that
an amateur pilot could not traverse just feet above the ground.
You would be wrong. You continue to attempt to twist things around to prove your inaccurate point, but unfortunately for your arguments, they are not
supported by science or the incomplete evidence you pick and choose, and then present.
Nice try, no cigar. And please, do not presume to say what I agree to or not, or to put words in my mouth. What I have posted is a matter of record,
and your attempts to change that simply make you look rather foolish.