Columnist Ted Rall: AA77 hit the lawn, not the building

reply to post by tezzajw


Why? Weren't the effects already evident?

reply to post by tezzajw

First off, please dial down the accusatory tone about three notches, its completely uncalled for as I have not been rude to you...

Originally posted by tezzajw
Now, when asked for further details, you don't want to discuss it?
Seems strange to me.

I did not answer the second question because it made no sense to me, and I have never read the OS, so I cannot answer the first. Maybe you could clarify then I’ll be happy to try and answer it. Again please keep the off topic person snipes out of the conversation though.

Originally posted by tezzajw
So which is it - did the alleged AA77 touch/hit the lawn, or not? Two different beliefs being expressed by two different government story supporters gets kind of confusing.

I don't know what it did because I was not there. My point however, is that aircraft will not make ruts in the grass when they do a belly slide. Regardless of whether it did or didn't touch the grass, you wouldn't see any evidence on the grass either way.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by tezzajw

 

First off, please dial down the accusatory tone about three notches, its completely uncalled for as I have not been rude to you...

There is no accusatory tone. Your interpretation must be a little off. It seems that your participation in this thread might be affecting your ability to also moderate your perceived 'tone' of what others type. I will be more than willing for you to ask another moderator to review this thread and my/your responses in it.

Originally posted by defcon5
I don't know what it did because I was not there.

Then your earlier claim that the plane 'most likely slid upon it [the lawn] at some point' is without any factual basis, right?

Originally posted by defcon5
Regardless of whether it did or didn't touch the grass, you wouldn't see any evidence on the grass either way.

Well, that's your opinion. I'm sure that others will most certainly disagree.

It is self-healing lawn.

Personally, I think it is Astroturf. The belly of the airplane suffered one huge rug burn which caused it to vaporize, disintegrate, atomize or however the OS flavor of the month explains it.

911 is supposedly the most devastating occurrence on continental U.S. soil and those who were responsible for investigating it have turned it into a carnival. You really have to wonder about people in power who exhibit such contempt and willful negligence toward their fellow countrymen.

Regardless of whether it did or didn't touch the grass, you wouldn't see any evidence on the grass either way.

Because, as we all know, the PentaCon lawn is indestructable, where blades of grass and soil can withstand impact from a 450 MPH aluminum projectile. Maybe they should use this same type of grass at baseball and football stadiums; just think of how much money they would save on groundskeepers.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Then your earlier claim that the plane 'most likely slid upon it [the lawn] at some point' is without any factual basis, right?

Members of the truth movement have always claimed that the plane slid on the lawn, which is why they frequently refer to it by names such as the “Pentalawn”.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Well, that's your opinion. I'm sure that others will most certainly disagree.

Sorry, but what I stated above is a fact. You can look aircraft "gears up landing" and see that under most circumstances, with a jet aircraft, there is little to no damage to the ground.

Originally posted by tezzajw
There is no accusatory tone. Your interpretation must be a little off. It seems that your participation in this thread might be affecting your ability to also moderate your perceived 'tone' of what others type. I will be more than willing for you to ask another moderator to review this thread and my/your responses in it.

...And so your response to me asking you to cease with the accusations, is to make another accusation.
Now, please show me, where by stating facts, I am supporting one side or the other? So you can go ahead and drop the accusatory tone that I am supporting the OS, acting strange, or that my interpretation is “off”... Thanks!

People are allowed to make comments in the 911 forum, based on personal experience, without you pasting labels on them as to what side they support or don't support. If you would like to further discuss this this the staff, feel free to hit that “Alert” button at any time.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by tezzajw
Well, that's your opinion. I'm sure that others will most certainly disagree.

Sorry, but what I stated above is a fact. You can look aircraft "gears up landing" and see that under most circumstances, with a jet aircraft, there is little to no damage to the ground.

No, that's your general opinion, it is not a specific fact that relates to what happened at the Pentagon.

You first claimed that the plane most likely slid upon the lawn. When I pressed you about this, you then claimed that you don't know what happened because you were not there. GoodOlDave contradicted your initial statement, as he stated that the plane did not hit the lawn.

From what I can tell, after reading the Pentagon Building Performance Report, the official story is that the alleged AA77 did not make contact with the lawn. You still have not explained why you initially believed that it most likely slid upon the lawn.

Your previous 9/11 posting history has established yourself as generally believing the government version of events with regards to 9/11. That's why I wanted you to clarify your claim that the plane most likely slid upon the lawn. That claim seems to contradict the official version of events.

Your status as a moderator does not give you special exemptions from having your opinions questioned. You have not been personally attacked, so the friendly warnings that you have given me are unfounded.

Members of the truth movement have always claimed that the plane slid on the lawn, which is why they frequently refer to it by names such as the “Pentalawn”.

If any individual who doubts the OS believes there even was a large commercial airliner impacting with the Pentagon, they are either brain dead, blind or born yesterday.

That's a really crafty move - insult those who *might* be inclined to support further investigation.

Originally posted by tezzajw
No, that's your general opinion, it is not a specific fact that relates to what happened at the Pentagon.

No. It's an ABSOLUTE FACT that jets are designed to make “Belly” landings in the case of hydraulic landing gear failure. It's ALSO A FACT that they are designed to to this with digging in as little as possible to keep the airframe from snagging and breaking apart or rolling sideways.

Originally posted by tezzajw
You first claimed that the plane most likely slid upon the lawn. When I pressed you about this, you then claimed that you don't know what happened because you were not there.

Hence the fact that I used the wording “Most likely” as opposed to “did for a fact”...

Originally posted by tezzajw
You still have not explained why you initially believed that it most likely slid upon the lawn.

Because it seems to be the general consensus of certain people that it did, which is why the condition of the lawn keeps coming up.

My point was not to argue whether it did or didn't slide on the lawn, but rather that even if it had it would likely not make any significantly visible marks.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Your previous 9/11 posting history has established yourself as generally believing the government version of events with regards to 9/11. That's why I wanted you to clarify your claim that the plane most likely slid upon the lawn. That claim seems to contradict the official version of events.

My feeling is that NO account is going to satisfy everyone because NO account is going to be able to reverse engineer the millions of variables involved. So the OS, as well as any other theory out there is going to be factually lacking in some aspect, no matter what anyone does about it.

The fact that certain variables are lacking in an almost impossible to completely compile investigation does not mean that it was an inside job. Its quite a leap of logic to go from “crappy report” to “inside job”.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Your status as a moderator does not give you special exemptions from having your opinions questioned. You have not been personally attacked, so the friendly warnings that you have given me are unfounded.

I stand by what I said above, if you disagree, please feel free to hit that “Alert” button at any time...

The topic here is: “Columnist Ted Rall: AA77 Hit the lawn, not the building”.
IT'S NOT: “Is member so-and-so an OS supporter?”, “Does it seem strange that member so-and-so did not respond to my question?”, “Are two different members, who I assume should both believe the same thing, disagreeing?”, or “Is defcon5's interpretation off?”...

These little snipes are “Playing the other players in an attempt to discredit them, rather then playing the ball”. Can we get back to the topic now please?

Originally posted by defcon5
The topic here is: “Columnist Ted Rall: AA77 Hit the lawn, not the building”.
Can we get back to the topic now please?

Yes, the topic is related to the plane hitting the lawn. Your opinion about that and my follow-up questions are directly related to the thread. I have not veered away from the topic of the thread - the plane hitting the lawn. When you offer an opinion about that, it becomes part of the topic and discussion. Your status as a moderator does not protect you from having your opinions challenged/questioned, like other normal members.

Fact: You initially stated that the plane most likely slid upon the lawn. You have clarified that statement and now you admit that you really don't know what happened, as you were not there. You also admitted that the official story may be factually lacking in some aspects.

That's about all I need to read from you in this thread, defcon5. Thanks for the clarifications.

reply to post by tezzajw


Please explain to me what difference it makes whether or not it slid or bounced on the lawn, as based on my significant aviation experience, the end resulting condition of the lawn would have been the same?

That's a really crafty move - insult those who *might* be inclined to support further investigation.

What you or anyone else "might" be inclined to support is not really any of my concern. I am genuinely in deep remorse for not adhering to your politically correct standards.

However, to satisfy the "might be inclined" audience, I'll make sure to be more crafty with any subsequent observations. Is this crafty enough for you?

Polite Request

...lets keep it nicely focussed on the post and not the individual posters...play the ball and not the player etc etc...


Cheers guys.

Author Ted Rall really hasn't helped either side very much. Here are his key facts:
1 - The plane only created a 16' hole in the Pentagon
Hole has been measured at 96' wide by 18' high. www.oilempire.us...
2 - The Pentagon was made of WPA era concrete
As far as I can find, the actual construction was a facade of 8"' thick limestone block backed by concrete and spaced steel supports.

In the end, his basis for the conjecture of hitting the lawn first appears erroneous, and is unsupported by eyewitnesses to the impact.

reply to post by userid1
I keep hearing from you and others about the score of 'witnesses' to the plane impacting the building. Do us all a favor and get one of them to come here to ats. Ask them to give a little backround, where they were, why they were there and maybe their description of the impact. You see, I dont believe there is anyone who saw a plane hit the pentagon, because there is not enough evidence right now to prove that one did. There's a trunkfull of plane 'parts', 4 frames of a blur and an explosion and no wings, tail, engines, luggage or passengers. I know you believe there's evidence of a plane crash there but, there's obviously alot of us who dont. So, get somebody credible to describe what happened that day, and I'll quit posting on this topic. Now there's an incentive for you.

Originally posted by tezzajw
So which is it - did the alleged AA77 touch/hit the lawn, or not? Two different beliefs being expressed by two different government story supporters gets kind of confusing.

From what I have seen...and more importantly, what I have not seen...it did not. Hitting the lawn would have left skid marks on the ground, plus it would have left different damage to the ground objects near the Pentagon like that concrete boundary marker thing. I am only going by the photographic evidence I've seen so if someone can show me a photo of ground abrasions I'll adjust my position accordingly.

The only real confusion that I can see is from eyewitnesses interpreting the specific details of the event from the short time they were able to see it. One eyewitnesses may confuse smoke from a damaged engine as being dirt being kicked up, while another eyewitness may confuse a jet aircraft with a turboprop aircraft, and yet another eyewitness may have thought the plane was 100 yards away when it was really 120 yards away, which is understandable seeing they only had a split second to obverve all of this. NOONE is going to confuse a plane with a missile, elephant, cruise ship, Redwood tree, or whatever imaginative alternatives those damned fool conspiracy web sites are coming up with these days.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I wonder if the inconsistencies shown by government story supporters creates any discord in their camp?

You need to know there is no such thing as "the government story". That's yet another pseudo-label the conspiracy theorists cooked up on their own to instigate abject paranoia. When an immigrant from El Salvador watering the lawn says he saw a passenger jet hit the Pentagon, it's his story, not the gov'ts. When we see a photo of a large chunk of an aircraft fuselage lying on the Pentagon lawn, it's the photographer's story, not the gov'ts. When a forensics expert says he identified the remains of a specific passenger that was known to have been on AA77, that's his testimony, not the govt's.

These people were directly involved with the events of 9/11, and I wasn't. The reason their testimonies corroborate each other is because the event they're describing actually happened, not because of any "government story" you imagine has been released.

This is not an exercise in probability. Either the alleged AA77 made contact with the lawn or it did not. There is no room for arbitrary guesswork.

AA77 was not an "alleged" flight. It was documented to have existed and the fact cannot be contested. The discussion at had is whether it was something else other than flight AA77 that hit the Pentagon.

Which government story supporter will clear the matter up, leaving no doubts?

At this point I think it's a given that there isn't a single thing anyone on the planet could possibly tell you that would convince you to abandon these absurd conspiracy stories. This is because regardless of how many "doubts" of yours are being cleared up, the con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites would simply invent more accusations for you to be "suspicious" over.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
So we have four potential scenarios here from OSers:

1) The airplane hit the lawn
2) The airplane grazed the lawn
3) The airplane did not hit the lawn.
4) The engine was trailing along the ground.

Which OSer would like to take a stab at scenario #5 or is four enough?

I'll take a stab at a scenario #5...

5) We really don't care because it was still flight AA77 that hit the Pentagon regardless of whether the engine hit the lawn, grazed the lawn or didn't touch the lawn at all. This is a matter of debate in the minds of the conspiracy theorists entirely because they're grasping at straws in desperation at this point. You might as well be argung over whether Hani Hanjour's shirt had five buttons or six.

reply to post by GoodOlDave
Dave, why do you keep bringing up 'these damn fool conspiracy sites' ? That's totally irrelevant, because this site, by itself, has introduced dozens of blatant lies and inaccuracies that we have been asked to accept as explanations for the events of 9/11. Tupac alone, has stated a case that by itself, justifies an independent investigation. You're a perfect example of a paid disinfo agent, plain and simple. I do not have any responsibility to treat you with respect because you haven't earned it. If all you can do is continue to repeat the same story, over and over, and shed absolutely no new light on the subject, it tells us all we need to know about you. Go ahead and attack me personally, in fact I welcome it because it only further proves what I'm accusing you of.

Originally posted by dillweed

 

Dave, why do you keep bringing up 'these damn fool conspiracy sites' ? That's totally irrelevant, because this site, by itself, has introduced dozens of blatant lies and inaccuracies that we have been asked to accept as explanations for the events of 9/11. Tupac alone, has stated a case that by itself, justifies an independent investigation. You're a perfect example of a paid disinfo agent, plain and simple. I do not have any responsibility to treat you with respect because you haven't earned it. If all you can do is continue to repeat the same story, over and over, and shed absolutely no new light on the subject, it tells us all we need to know about you. Go ahead and attack me personally, in fact I welcome it because it only further proves what I'm accusing you of.

Why would I attack you personally? I don't know you from Adam, and besides, I have the facts on my side so I don't need to attack anyone personally. I just need to have someone show how even a microbe of what I'm saying is incorrect. FYI you do not have the obligation to agree with me, but yes, you do have the obligation to treat me with respect because you and I are guests here on this discussion board. If you don't like their rules, go start your own board.

As for the damned fool conspiracy web sites and the con artists running them, how can I *not* mention it? It's been shown time after time that they're the main reason why these goofball conspiracy stories even exist. This very "no plane hit the Pentagon" baloney was invented by some French guy so he could sell a bunch of books...and he never stepped foot within 100 miles of the Pentagon. The fact of the matter is, it's less the case that there are any genuine lies and inaccuracies and more the case that a bunch of self serving snake oil peddlers are misrepresenting everything they touch like a paranoid version of King Midas to give the false appearance of impropriety. "Does the order still stand" will never, under any way shape or form, mean the same thing as "stand down order" regardless of how zealously the conspiracy theorists hope that it does.

As for an independent investigation, have as many investigations as you want, as far as I'm concerned. An investigation definitively determining whether or not the engine of AA77 touched the ground before the plane struck the Pentagon will certainly fill in the blanks in our understanding, but knowing the fact won't help your conspiracy claims in the least.