The PentaCON

Originally posted by anoncoholic
reply to post by pteridine

 

just becasue a passenger plane hits something doesn't mean it was piloted by an on-board pilot.

Someone said that is all bs and yet lets just let the evidence speak for itself. Was the plane shot down?

Norman Minetta (sp?) went on record first describing the Cheney incident and later recanted testimony isn't suspicious?

Never mind guys... nothing will change your mindset , not reasoning rationale or honor. There is a stronger force than truth in play here

So you are a remote controlled plane proponent. Were there passsengers onboard or is there some complicated, Rube Goldberg variation on your theory? What shoot down? The Pentagon is close to the DC airport and unscheduled passenger planes were landing there as a result of the earlier attacks. Who would shoot down a plane on approach?
Reasoning and rationale seem to elude you. You have provided none so far to make your case. How does honor enter into this and what "stronger force than truth" is in play? Are you plagiarizing from another website without thinking?

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by anoncoholic

 

If you are sincerely interested in facts and not just trying to get a rise out of a stranger on the internet you may want to spend some time to superficially familiarize yourself with some of the principles at work.

Just because you dont understand does not neccisairly mean that nobody else does either.

Honest, you've been fooled by bad science in a slick production.

Watch closely....

edit on 20-10-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)

not one of these videos was a 747 with more weight to thrust ratio. The fact that planes glide for distance doesn't mean a 747 can and in fact like the shuttle it will continue to fall until it impacts the ground either with landing gear or nose gear. If a 747 could fly at ground level then all you need to do is open up thrust to max and it will fly from a standstill

I still wonder that you fail to comprehend I am talking about ground change not ground clearance. Making this about the plane and not the ground is more smoke and mirrors on your part.

Making this an issue of truther vs evidence is also more smoke and mirrors when it is the evidence a truth seeker is trying to find not bury like the perpetrators would rather us do so it seems more than apparent what you stand for.

Originally posted by anoncoholic
contrary to what you might think you are not god and don't have all the answers. Posting animation is not proof of anything other than creativity. What would have been proof is the tower radar tapes yet they too were destroyed and once again everything is copacetic in the world of subterfuge.

I am immune to bait and switch tactics. I was answering the question on why "we didn't see a plane in the last few frames" and I answered it. I never said I had all the answers. I only had the answers to the specific question being asked. The only subterfuge I'm seeing is here is from your getting an answer you didn't want to hear.

What you truthers really need to be asking is why you should be taking the inane claim of "no plane hit the Pentagon" seriously when everyone who was there specifically said it was a plane they saw? I don't need to tell you that claiming everyone is a secret gov't agent is getting old.

Dave, witnesses are meaningless in our discussion here. Where is the gd airplane? Not the ridiculous photos of pieces that would fit in a garbage bag, but the airplane? Where are the wings, the engines, the tail, the bodies, the luggage, the 'wreckage' ? The same plane that disappeared, can't also punch thru re-inforced concrete and not break a window. Of all the bullsh*t stories you guys have to defend, this has to be the hardest.

Originally posted by anoncoholic

 

not one of these videos was a 747 with more weight to thrust ratio. The fact that planes glide for distance doesn't mean a 747 can and in fact like the shuttle it will continue to fall until it impacts the ground either with landing gear or nose gear. If a 747 could fly at ground level then all you need to do is open up thrust to max and it will fly from a standstill

Oh, you mean like this?



I guess the air show promoters in Portugal didn''t get the word from Rob Balsamo that this is a violation of physics.

reply to post by anoncoholic


First off, yes the forces are comparable. I chose the videos posted above because of the grassy substrate to address your concern regarding the jet blast tearing up the astro turf, I guess you missed that.

Second, what does a B-747 have to do with anything? We are discussing American Airlines Flight 77, a B-757-200.

Lastly....





Dave beat me too the draw with the Airbus, try this one...



Convinced yet?

Originally posted by dillweed
Dave, witnesses are meaningless in our discussion here. Where is the gd airplane?

In any case, it's a moot point, given how AA77 didn't fly 400+ kts at ground level the entire way. It exited the 290 degree turn at about 2000' and 300 kts, and did a continuing decent with full throttle all the way to impact. It was only for the last minute that the speed started building as it did, a natural reaction to the nose being pointed downwards and the throttle being set to maximum.

reply to post by roboe
What film did you see that on?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by anoncoholic
contrary to what you might think you are not god and don't have all the answers. Posting animation is not proof of anything other than creativity. What would have been proof is the tower radar tapes yet they too were destroyed and once again everything is copacetic in the world of subterfuge.

I am immune to bait and switch tactics. I was answering the question on why "we didn't see a plane in the last few frames" and I answered it. I never said I had all the answers. I only had the answers to the specific question being asked. The only subterfuge I'm seeing is here is from your getting an answer you didn't want to hear.

What you truthers really need to be asking is why you should be taking the inane claim of "no plane hit the Pentagon" seriously when everyone who was there specifically said it was a plane they saw? I don't need to tell you that claiming everyone is a secret gov't agent is getting old.

and once again in case you missed my repeated asking this question linked in my siggy, why the need to lie if there is nothing to coverup.

The fact that a lie is put forth for the public to buy into is where all my suspicions are raised and I do not blindly fall into plausibility, I am asking for proof. All you do is regurgitate the same story and that also isn't proof. People lie, that is obvious yet you base your entire premise upon the word of others rather than tangible evidence,... evidence that is without dispute in the link in my siggy of obvious lie and attempted coverup.

Now since you have made 911 your cause to denounce anything but the version you adhere to then please, by all or any means, explain why the need to lie about 911 if it was all as we are being told by the OS.

You imply I am doing this to sell books or t-shirts or tour dates what may I ask is your motive in perpetuating the lie? Do not go off on another tangent, just address the one question of why did Popular Mechanics lie and if you can explain that adequately I will cease my questioning in an instant becasue all I want is the truth not conjecture or possible scenario, the truth

Truth is in your vocabulary isn't it? You are verbose to a point of deception if you refuse to answer my one simple question.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by anoncoholic

 

First off, yes the forces are comparable. I chose the videos posted above because of the grassy substrate to address your concern regarding the jet blast tearing up the astro turf, I guess you missed that.

Second, what does a B-747 have to do with anything? We are discussing American Airlines Flight 77, a B-757-200.

Lastly....

Dave beat me too the draw with the Airbus, try this one...

Convinced yet?

edit on 20-10-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)

no, not at all. None of these vids you guys post is first floor altitude. In fact if memory serves the hole in the Pentagon is low enough to walk into and none of these show a plane low enough to impact at that level. Only a crash would be that low and yet according to you all it was flown in.

Amazing capability coming from an inexperienced pilot with no flying time behind the stick of a plane that performed miraculously.

again, w/e. None of you can answer my repeated question as to why the need to lie so I leave it there. Nothing to see here but more of the same.

reply to post by anoncoholic


Anon, M. Scott Peck wrote a book a few years ago called 'People of the Lie'. In it he explains the existence of people like Dave. Doesn't make it any better, but at least it helped me understand how someone can be this way.

reply to post by anoncoholic


Your posts have seemed to indicate that you really haven't done research, and do not know much about the topic, about aviation, about flying....and instead are just concocting ideas from what pops into your head, with irrelevant questions intended to make a false assertion that something *should* have been done but wasn't....when in fact, your ideas that pop aren't even feasible in the first place.

Also, not your fault, but your impressions have been polluted by the vast depth of garbage opinions, fake *facts* and assertions that infest the "conspiracy theory" websites.

Like:

How about testimony of Cheney refusing to rescind the stand down orders that allowed an approaching plane to get closer, and closer, and closer, until it actually "supposedly" hit.

There was no "stand down order". In fact, when you review all the testimony and think clearly about what was being related by Norman Mineta (and do some more digging) you learn that Cheney had given implicit orders, via channels in the Secret Service, to "protect the House at all costs". That refers to the White House of course.

It was technically outside his authority to authorize shoot-downs of civilian airliners, but he was the one in the Sit Room, so was on point to make decisions. The "order" that was still "standing" was that one. Fighters were on their way to take position over Washington, DC. They arrived too late to stop American 77.

Get your facts straight first at least....... then twist them to you liking

Many reports came out on 911 and if all are to be believed there were also helicopters hijacked that day.

Now you're just making it up.

Fly a C130 overhead (cover story of "oh look at the plane") where the f was the shoot-down order?

As I mentioned above, this is where you just ask a question that is moot, and irrelevant and based on ignorance of the topic.

Further research into the facts will show you that the C-130 that belonged to the Minnesota Air National Guard had no armaments.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by roboe

 

What film did you see that on?

Flight Path Study - American Airlines Flight 77" (PDF).

Originally posted by anoncoholic

no, not at all. None of these vids you guys post is first floor altitude. In fact if memory serves the hole in the Pentagon is low enough to walk into and none of these show a plane low enough to impact at that level. Only a crash would be that low and yet according to you all it was flown in.

Here is the HUD video from the IA 63 Pampa pass posted above at top.



You were saying?

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by anoncoholic

 

Your posts have seemed to indicate that you really haven't done research, and do not know much about the topic, about aviation, about flying....and instead are just concocting ideas from what pops into your head, with irrelevant questions intended to make a false assertion that something *should* have been done but wasn't....when in fact, your ideas that pop aren't even feasible in the first place.

Also, not your fault, but your impressions have been polluted by the vast depth of garbage opinions, fake *facts* and assertions that infest the "conspiracy theory" websites.

Like:

How about testimony of Cheney refusing to rescind the stand down orders that allowed an approaching plane to get closer, and closer, and closer, until it actually "supposedly" hit.

There was no "stand down order". In fact, when you review all the testimony and think clearly about what was being related by Norman Mineta (and do some more digging) you learn that Cheney had given implicit orders, via channels in the Secret Service, to "protect the House at all costs". That refers to the White House of course.

It was technically outside his authority to authorize shoot-downs of civilian airliners, but he was the one in the Sit Room, so was on point to make decisions. The "order" that was still "standing" was that one. Fighters were on their way to take position over Washington, DC. They arrived too late to stop American 77.

Get your facts straight first at least....... then twist them to you liking

Many reports came out on 911 and if all are to be believed there were also helicopters hijacked that day.

Now you're just making it up.

Fly a C130 overhead (cover story of "oh look at the plane") where the f was the shoot-down order?

As I mentioned above, this is where you just ask a question that is moot, and irrelevant and based on ignorance of the topic.

Further research into the facts will show you that the C-130 that belonged to the Minnesota Air National Guard had no armaments.

please, I am not so gullible to believe these assertions. In fact Cheney granted himself powers before 911. He took the others out of the loop so perhaps you could do a little more digging for truth before you continue to promote half-truths

I am not infallible and never claimed to be. What I speak comes from memory and spur of the moment intuition. When someone says look a train is flying I do not believe it becasue I heard it, I disbelieve it because a lifetime of experience has shown me truth.

Now instead of questioning whether a train can fly the OS promoters are saying take our word for it and unfortunately I would rather see it to believe it.

You might think this is too much of an exaggeration and yet telling me that America didn't see Muslim extremists attacking was an oversight, didn't see planes being used as missiles was not taken into consideration (definite lies and if you want I can prove it) didn't take advantage of the opportunity to rob America blind in every conceivable means available, didn't plan the reaction to supposed attack beforehand, didn't manipulate the people to a desired reaction, didn't utilize the MSM to sell the people that lie repeatedly... in fact the only thing that wasn't suspicious that day is ... shoot, I am at a loss for words here.

Can you tell me of a single thing that day that went right as far as the country goes?

The weather was nice

reply to post by DrunkenparrotOnce again, you guys use your only source of information regarding the events of that day. When will you acknowledge the fact that that information is without verification? The investigators, by their own admission in at least one case, were not allowed to properly investigate what really took place. So, the whole investigation is tarnished. Ergo, we need a new investigation, and all your efforts to prop up this one,are useless. Your story is crumbling by the day.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by anoncoholic

no, not at all. None of these vids you guys post is first floor altitude. In fact if memory serves the hole in the Pentagon is low enough to walk into and none of these show a plane low enough to impact at that level. Only a crash would be that low and yet according to you all it was flown in.

Here is the HUD video from the IA 63 Pampa pass posted above at top.

You were saying?

I saw Forrest Gump shake JFK's hand

you were implying?

reply to post by anoncoholic


Further evidence that you have no experience flying airplanes.

None of these vids you guys post is first floor altitude. In fact if memory serves the hole in the Pentagon is low enough to walk into and none of these show a plane low enough to impact at that level. Only a crash would be that low and yet according to you all it was flown in.

Did you even watch the NTSB video? At 2 seconds, or just under, away from impact [that is where the video freezes, because the final data was not properly decoded by NTSB, they were in a hurry to have it ready so people could visualize the event].....at that point where the data became corrupted, the airplane was at 180 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level). The elevation of the land at the Pentagon is near Sea Level, perhaps 20 or 30 feet above.

Therefore, the jet was still about 150 feet above the ground. Descending on a gradual trajectory and angle that ended at impact point, as low as he could aim. In their planning they probably decided that was the way to inflict the most damage, for that building. They selected that side, and approach method too because of the highway, Route 244, also known as Columbia Pike. Look at maps, and see how following that highway takes you along the exact course to impact.

It was chosen for that reason, most likely, and was an easy landmark to choose from the air, and use to assist the aim.

Amazing capability coming from an inexperienced pilot with no flying time behind the stick of a plane that performed miraculously.

Another false assertion, and indicates that you have no flying experience in order to understand why this is moot, and incorrect.

There was nothing "miraculous" about a descending turn to the right. That was ll he did....he flew over the Pentagon to find it, then a wide, lazy turn to the right to acquire the highway as a guide to go back in for the hit.

It really is no different than finding an airport.....it can be the same principle (and, even if he was a crap pilot, in terms of finesse and style, he WAS a pilot). The technique can be used for landing at an (uncontrolled) airport. It is also a procedure trained for and used by military pilots.

It is very simple....you fly over-head the point on the ground (Pentagon, in this case) that you are aiming for, and then make a constant-bank turn. A constant bank gives you a constant radius (ignoring wind effects, the winds were light, so they aren't important).

At his speed in that turn, it was a wide radius....and when he'd completed the turn, he could see the Pentagon (target) out in the distance, just as you'd see your runway the same way, if you were using it for a landing pattern technique.

The only people who say that turn was *miraculous* are people who have no idea what they're talking about----or, have an agenda of some sort, and are willing to repeat the lie to laypersons, in order to perpetuate this myth.


From a Dutch TV show investigating the "conspiracy" claims. This part opens with clips from that silly movie, '"Loose Change" --- a film responsible for many of the myths and errors that infect the so called "Truth Movement". For instance, in the opening clip, the filmmaker and narrator, Dylan Avery< is wrong when he says that American 77, flown by Hank Hanjour, "...executed a 330° turn at 530 miles per hour...".

The turn, yes...he did make the turn, as I mentioned above. But NOT at 530 MPH!!

I have seen you ask many times about "lies" and if just one person lies, then we should not believe anything else they say. Dylan Avery (and nearly everyone else on the side of the so-called "Truth Movement") lie daily.

Here, the video.....it's important because they used a pilot of low experience, not an airline pilot, and put him in a jet simulator to fly the procedure as Hani Hanjour did. Skip to 09:00, where Avery talks about the engine debris....another lie!! That's just two, from his film. There are more.....(he also lies at 11:12).

The simulator flying begins at 12:40 --




And, Part 3 --

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by anoncoholic

 

Your posts have seemed to indicate that you really haven't done research, and do not know much about the topic, about aviation, about flying....and instead are just concocting ideas from what pops into your head, with irrelevant questions intended to make a false assertion that something *should* have been done but wasn't....when in fact, your ideas that pop aren't even feasible in the first place.

Also, not your fault, but your impressions have been polluted by the vast depth of garbage opinions, fake *facts* and assertions that infest the "conspiracy theory" websites.

Like:

How about testimony of Cheney refusing to rescind the stand down orders that allowed an approaching plane to get closer, and closer, and closer, until it actually "supposedly" hit.

There was no "stand down order". In fact, when you review all the testimony and think clearly about what was being related by Norman Mineta (and do some more digging) you learn that Cheney had given implicit orders, via channels in the Secret Service, to "protect the House at all costs". That refers to the White House of course.

It was technically outside his authority to authorize shoot-downs of civilian airliners, but he was the one in the Sit Room, so was on point to make decisions. The "order" that was still "standing" was that one. Fighters were on their way to take position over Washington, DC. They arrived too late to stop American 77.

Get your facts straight first at least....... then twist them to you liking

Many reports came out on 911 and if all are to be believed there were also helicopters hijacked that day.

Now you're just making it up.

Fly a C130 overhead (cover story of "oh look at the plane") where the f was the shoot-down order?

As I mentioned above, this is where you just ask a question that is moot, and irrelevant and based on ignorance of the topic.

Further research into the facts will show you that the C-130 that belonged to the Minnesota Air National Guard had no armaments.

wow, our entire defense rests on a single plane theory. What happened to all the rest of those trillions spent on defense?