You know, I could go through every point you are trying to make here again and again and again, but you are repeating your bogus trash so many times
that it just isn't worth it any more. I could shove a pie in your face and you would say, "There is no pie". So I'll just point out a few glaring
lies/misconceptions that you continue to post.
On the pilot question, you can believe whatever you wish, it really doesn't matter. I'm sure you know way more than I do, as my 20+ years of flying
for a living don't mean a thing. I'm clueless, right? Teaching in the formal school house for 4 1/2 years means nothing, right? Right. I'll leave
you to your delusion here, but suffice to say that the terrorists that flew the planes on 9/11 did so themselves, and were more than able to do what
they did. The only exception may have been the guy who tanked it in PA. There are still a few questions about that one, but we aren't talking about
that here, are we?
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
2)The light standards were hit, and at least one knocked over as the craft traveled across the roadway. Light standards are what 20-35 feet above
ground? The craft would have been descending, by the time it crossed over the roadway and onto the field, it would have had to be even lower than the
35 feet to knock over the posts.
Again, I asked you to give information on the light standards height and position in relation to the building so as to prove your ascertation of a
"skimming the ground" aircraft, which is the whole basis to your bogus theory, and you do not. You ignore it because it suits your purpose to do so.
You keep repeating the same crap with no new information. If the light poles were 50 feet high, 25 feet from the building and the top 5 feet was
clipped off, that would make the VERTICLE trajectory quite steep, now wouldn’t it? Simple math…it’s called geometry.
The bottom floor of the pentagon is not on stilts, the craft supposedly hit between the first and second floors, … That means that the craft would
have had to have entered the first floor with at least a generous 17 feet slicing into the second floor.
And just what is this supposed to prove? It surely doesn't prove trajectory, as you seem to be alluding to.
Post 733429 shows the security camera’s video of the incoming flight just as it passed in front of some sort of box like structure, which as you can
from the clip is quite short compared to the building...Me- 719729- Yes there is photographic evidence, as presented previously on this thread, and as
provided by a security camera.
The "footage" you allude to shows only the explosion as the aircraft hits the building...not, as you claim, the trajectory of the aircraft. If you
can ascertain the trajectory of the aircraft from these few frames, you need to be in the intel analysis business. Another bogus claim of evidence
that does not support.
i.e.: The fact remains that the craft sheared those standards, knocked over at least one, and slammed into the first and second floors of the
Pentagon, which had to have been at a maximum, 16 feet off the ground.
Again, you continue this light standard thing, but you still refuse to present information requested. How far from the building? How tall? As I said
before and you conveniently ignored, it makes a difference.
Me- 721869- Yes you are obfuscating. 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.
Wow. Are you a student of Yoga? Because you surely are stretching here. You put words in my mouth, and tell me what I am saying, ignoring what has
actually been said? Get real.
Three of the four pilots had pilot’s licenses. Do you think they got them by flying a simulator alone? You're being very absurd. What I said was that
they "honed their skills" on flight sim's. Anyone can do it, with the obvious exception of you.
It is supposed to show exactly what it said. It is you who are ignoring the trajectory issue, I provided you with excerpts from Pentagon press
briefings, directly from your DoD site, and have specifically referred you to a diagram that shows the defence’s rendering of the vertical trajectory
on impact.. If that is ignoring the trajectory, then you must permit me some time to conjour up Hanjour via ouija board to have him sign an affidavit
as to it being otherwise....
Ok, let me see if I can explain this in a way that you will understand, although trying to read your posts and keep them straight is very difficult,
as you wander from point to point quite aimlessly.
The diagram on page three of the Pentagon renovation plan you link to DOES NOT SHOW VERTICLE TRAJECTORY!
It shows the horizontal angle at which
the aircraft struck the building. Can you grasp that, or does it escape you?
I never have, nor will I ever, disagree as to where the plane hit the building, first and second floor. You seem to be fixated on that, but all you
are doing is arguing that point with yourself. Get over it, it's not germane to the conversation.
And oh, by the way, you've used the word "obfuscation" way too many times. Go back to the dictionary and find another one to run into the ground.
What are your credentials, that we are to believe your ridiculous assertion of SIM proficiency, while injecting your theorem that people exaggerate
the height of C-130’s flying overhead at 300 feet, is likely why this construction crewman ducked just prior to this 757 barreling into the FIRST
floor of the Pentagon?
This is the last question I will answer for you, as you keep mulling over the same inane points over and over, and offer proof that does not prop up
your claims. As many here know, my credentials are thus. 20+ years active duty Air Force aircrew with a Master of Science in Aeronautical Engineering.
5000+ flight hours, with over 1700 of that being instructor time. But hey, what do I know, right? You've been watching "Mechanical Marvels" on the
history channel, which makes you the expert, right?
You may continue your senseless diatribes if you wish, but please try to come up with something that supports your claims, and discontinue telling me
what I said or meant to say, or paraphrasing me to support your drivel. It grows very tiresome.
[edit on 13-8-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]