The Pentagon was hit on 9/11 it wasn't staged.

Mr. Mulder- I see that you have stop the conversation because you ran out of fluff to try to argue about. You also called out someone to attempt to show they were lying about a friend of theirs who experienced the tradgedy first hand. I also know a witness to the attack who was driving that morning. Are you stating they also are lying?

And to the blinkly head Mergo-muffin-man, This has nothing to do with Political agenda and Bush bashing so lighten up. Take a minute to come up with a valid arguement or comment, rather than spew rhetoric with no means.

Now, This thread had to do with wether or not the Pentagon was struck. It was Al-Qeada, and they caught the US with our pants down. This was an UNPRECEDENTED attack. We have guidelines in place for situations such as these, but would you have liked to give the order to shoot down fellow Americans in an attempt to save more lives. Probably not, since your greatest work decision is probably to supersize or not.

I mean, if aliens landed in Central Park, would we refer to a manual, or act on instinct, or freeze. Bottom line is we will never know.

How do you force an intercepted aircraft to land when the hijackers on board don't care if they die. I would think if you just fly beside it that they don't care and would just continue on the same flight path. If you get in front of it wouldn't they just plow thru since they are prepared to die and take as many lives with them as possible?

It does not matter what you tell some of these people on here. It is a conspiracy discussion website, and no matter how events unfold they are going to find some way to make it into a conspiracy. Makes for good entertainment to pass time by.

I don't know what the coverage was like in other places, but here in the D.C. area it was pretty extensive for the Pentagon. Sure looked like a plane hit it to me and I had no reason to be suspicious of Ted Olson's story of his last contact with his wife, Barbara, before her plane hit the building. We got so much information around the clock with it being local, so much close-up interviewing and footage of the clean-up, it never seemed staged or faked at all. I absolutely believe it was exactly what it was reported to be.

Originally posted by torque
I don't know what the coverage was like in other places, but here in the D.C. area it was pretty extensive for the Pentagon. Sure looked like a plane hit it to me and I had no reason to be suspicious of Ted Olson's story of his last contact with his wife, Barbara, before her plane hit the building. We got so much information around the clock with it being local, so much close-up interviewing and footage of the clean-up, it never seemed staged or faked at all. I absolutely believe it was exactly what it was reported to be.

I have a friend who is a 911 operator in DC, and she would agree with you. She was keeping me up to date with emails on what was happening behind the scenes, and it wasn't pretty.....

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by mrmulder
This conversation has been terminated.

[edit on 6-8-2004 by mrmulder]

TRANSLATION: I apologize for making untrue, unsubstantiated, reckless statements that I have no way of backing up as the evidence does not exist. I got myself in too deep speaking out of turn with persons highly knowledgeable in the subject, and I give up trying to misdirect everyone with smoke and mirrors.




...Ok, I'll take that as an apology....just wondering what she edited out!!!


*Parody...not to be taken seriously...unless you fell you must...*

[edit on 6-8-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]

I never excepted defeat. I'm just tired of arguing. So you say I've shown no proof. Okay. So what? You have yet to show me any proof either that you're right. Where's your proof? Oh wait you don't have any either. Darn. I guess we're even. Let me give me you a litttle word advice. There's an old saying. "Talk is cheap." Since I've provided a link and you haven't, that make my talk not as cheap as yours.

[edit on 6-8-2004 by mrmulder]

Originally posted by mrmulder
HA! I just caught you in a BIG lie!

No, you did not.

First yous say

A check of all LT Millers in the US Navy shows only one female nurse.

Then you say:

I have checked that entire database for a reservist with a last name Miller who is female and attached to a medical command and I have not found a thing.

So I know you're lying. Futhermore, you can't go through any personal service record of Top Secret military clearance of any Lt. with this statis. The government would hunt you down and arrest you. It's illegal. This conversation is over.

First of all, yes I can. I am an active duty member of the US Navy. If that person was active or a reservist I could find them to verify your story. As I said I only found one LT Miller who was female who was listed as a nurse and that was on the west coast. She is listed as being on active duty.

Obviously you are not going to give any more information on this topic since both you and your arguments have been shown to be full of pure bunk.

If you want us to be able to verify your story then we need a full name, I can take it from there and contact her. If she can verify your story then I guess we all owe you a big apology.

Balls in your court.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by mrmulder
HA! I just caught you in a BIG lie!

No, you did not.

First yous say

A check of all LT Millers in the US Navy shows only one female nurse.

Then you say:

I have checked that entire database for a reservist with a last name Miller who is female and attached to a medical command and I have not found a thing.

So I know you're lying. Futhermore, you can't go through any personal service record of Top Secret military clearance of any Lt. with this statis. The government would hunt you down and arrest you. It's illegal. This conversation is over.

First of all, yes I can. I am an active duty member of the US Navy. If that person was active or a reservist I could find them to verify your story. As I said I only found one LT Miller who was female who was listed as a nurse and that was on the west coast. She is listed as being on active duty.

Obviously you are not going to give any more information on this topic since both you and your arguments have been shown to be full of pure bunk.

If you want us to be able to verify your story then we need a full name, I can take it from there and contact her. If she can verify your story then I guess we all owe you a big apology.

Balls in your court.

You're in the Navy? Shouldn't you be protecting your country instead of surfing websites like this one?

Originally posted by mrmulder
You're in the Navy? Shouldn't you be protecting your country instead of surfing websites like this one?

Funny.

Rather than answer direct questions and help to rebuild your credibility you choose to go with a lame joke.

Like I said, balls in your court.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by mrmulder
You're in the Navy? Shouldn't you be protecting your country instead of surfing websites like this one?

Funny.

Rather than answer direct questions and help to rebuild your credibility you choose to go with a lame joke.

Like I said, balls in your court.

Where's your proof that I'm wrong? Oops you have no proof either. Darn. Show me a good link that proves your correct then we'll talk. Like I said earlier "Talk is cheap."

[edit on 6-8-2004 by mrmulder]

Originally posted by mrmulder
Where's your proof that I'm wrong? Oops you have no proof either. Darn. Show me a good link that proves your correct then we'll talk. Like I said earlier "Talk is cheap."
[edit on 6-8-2004 by mrmulder]

I already told you where you were wrong. What proof do you seek?

When you start giving me information that I can use to verify your "claims" then I will be more than happy to provide you with whatever proof you want (so long as it is not classified).

Satisfied now?

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by mrmulder
Where's your proof that I'm wrong? Oops you have no proof either. Darn. Show me a good link that proves your correct then we'll talk. Like I said earlier "Talk is cheap."
[edit on 6-8-2004 by mrmulder]

I already told you where you were wrong. What proof do you seek?

When you start giving me information that I can use to verify your "claims" then I will be more than happy to provide you with whatever proof you want (so long as it is not classified).

Satisfied now?

Nope. Talk is cheap and that's all I'm going to say.

[edit on 6-8-2004 by mrmulder]

Originally posted by mrmulder
Nope. Talk is cheap and that's all I'm going to say.

[edit on 6-8-2004 by mrmulder]

Fine, what would you like to talk about then?

Do you want me to explian intercept procedures to you?

Do you want me to explain IFF codes to you?

Do you want me to explain how your friend being on the flight deck while the aircraft was preparing to taxi was in a violation of NATOPS and FAA regulations?

Do you want me to explain what NATOPS is?

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by mrmulder
Nope. Talk is cheap and that's all I'm going to say.

[edit on 6-8-2004 by mrmulder]

Fine, what would you like to talk about then?

Do you want me to explian intercept procedures to you?

Do you want me to explain IFF codes to you?

Do you want me to explain how your friend being on the flight deck while the aircraft was preparing to taxi was in a violation of NATOPS and FAA regulations?

Do you want me to explain what NATOPS is?

Nope because you'll probably be making up all the information as far as I know. You can say whatever you want. But without proof (and I mean a link) then how am I supposed to believe you. I don't know who you are.

Originally posted by mrmulder
Nope because you'll probably be making up all the information as far as I know. You can say whatever you want. But without proof (and I mean a link) then how am I supposed to believe you. I don't know who you are.

God, this is like talking to a two year old.

I cannot provide you with links until you tell me what exactly you want to know.

In exchange for that information I expect you to send me the name of your friend so that I can verify with her everything you said. Without that verification everything you have said so far is suspect.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by mrmulder
Nope because you'll probably be making up all the information as far as I know. You can say whatever you want. But without proof (and I mean a link) then how am I supposed to believe you. I don't know who you are.

God, this is like talking to a two year old.

I cannot provide you with links until you tell me what exactly you want to know.

In exchange for that information I expect you to send me the name of your friend so that I can verify with her everything you said. Without that verification everything you have said so far is suspect.

I want to know the procedures for intercepting an aircraft. Show me the link for those procedures. I'm not sending you any names now. I don't know who you are.
[edit on 6-8-2004 by mrmulder]

[edit on 6-8-2004 by mrmulder]

Originally posted by mrmulder
I want to know the procedures for intercepting an aircraft. Show me the link for those procedures. I'm not sending you any names now. I don't know who you are.

Here you are:
FAA PUBS

That should answer all your questions in regards to interception procedures. If you have any other ones after reading that then I will do my best to find the answers for you.

Anything else I can do for you?

Interception Responsibilities:

www.faa.gov...-12-10

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by mrmulder
I want to know the procedures for intercepting an aircraft. Show me the link for those procedures. I'm not sending you any names now. I don't know who you are.

Here you are:
FAA PUBS

That should answer all your questions in regards to interception procedures. If you have any other ones after reading that then I will do my best to find the answers for you.

Anything else I can do for you?

Okay I just posted a page from this same website on this thread earlier. This doesn't change anything nor does it change my opinion. You believe what you want to believe and I'll believe what I want to believe.

[edit on 6-8-2004 by mrmulder]

Originally posted by mrmulder
Okay I just posted a page from this same website on this thread earlier. This doesn't change anything nor does it change my opinion.

What are you talking about? The page you posted was for airspace, not interception. Had you done a little more research there you would have seen them for yourself a while ago.

You wanted the interception procedures. There they are in front of you.
What else do you need?

This is great. You are so diluted to believe that a jet did not the Pentagon. Lets try this. Tell us what happened and give us one link to prove it did not happen. Real proof. NOt photoshopped lawns in pictures either. Like you said, talk is cheap. The only thing you have been arguing is some FAA regualtion that has nothing to do with the plane hitting the Pentagon. Check in your X-Files for some secret pics to share with the rest of us.

side note-As far as the FAA regulations, every situation is open to different interpretation. Give 3 squad-leaders the same question on a tactical situation and you will probably get the same 3 answers. Now put them in the middle of a war zone and you may get 3 seperate answers. Adapting to the situation. Nothing is textbook, espaecially planes flying into buildings.