The PentaCON

reply to post by ProudBird
I can see by your picture there that you're obviously pretty savvy when it comes to aviation and things like that. Maybe, and that's a maybe mind you, one day they'll let you fly one of them 'jets'. What, are we supposed to suspend common sense because somebody has a pilots license? Your arrogance is very unattractive.

Originally posted by ProudBird
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.

first off the report of the stolen helicopter was made once on 911 by the MSM so don't imply I imagine anything.

Second you imply a gradual descent that doesn't explain the level flight to take out the light poles so lets be honest here that it was low enough to affect what was on the ground, grass included at supposed impact site

Third, my flight experience is not the point, the point is the experience of the hijacker so get over making this about me or my understanding of events. The issue now is what makes you the supreme authority or is it all scripted for you?

You come off like you have all the answers so once again ad nauseum, why the need to lie about any of it?

you do not know and because you do not know, you yourself should be demanding a new investigation ... unless of course you already know the truth and it is not for us discover otherwise it puts you in an uncomfortable position?

What else are we to believe in the face of logic and your refusal to admit to it?

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

It didn't. Look up Peace dividend, and you'll see why the entire US Eastern seaboard had a grand total of 4 aircraft on Alert Status (meaning trained and armed for interceptions). Of those 4, 2 were, at the time of AA77 hitting the Pentagon, circling over New York City, and the other 2 were enroute to Washington DC, having initially been vectored over the Ocean in order to get to New York.

reply to post by anoncoholic


Feel free to watch the videos I added, just above this post.

reply to post by dillweed

.....maybe mind you, one day they'll let you fly one of them 'jets'.

I have about 15,000 hours total in "them 'jets' ".

Not broken down per airplane, but here:

Boeing 727
Boeing737
Boeing757
Boeing767
Airbus A-300
McDonnell Douglas DC-10
McDonnell Douglas DC-9
McDonnell Douglas MD-80

And numerous other piston light airplanes, and turbo-prop airplanes as well.

My experience and knowledge is apparently viewed by those who do not understand as "arrogance", but when someone knows what others don't, and imparts that comprehension, then I call it "instructing".

reply to post by roboe
Why do you guys always seem to have things that would seem to support the OS at your fingertips, but have a very hard time explaining your reluctance to question anything 'official'. That doesn't seem natural to me.

Originally posted by anoncoholic

 

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.

...and once again since you've missed my repeated answer to this question, the reason is obvious- the gov't dropped the ball big time in the days leading up to and during 9/11 and everyone is covering up the monumental incompetence. Noone wants to be the one who comes forward and admit they were using a report of an imminent attack as a placemat to eat a Burger King Whopper at their desk.

All you need to do is look at that "Fast and Furious" debacle of the ATF. Some idiot thought it was a brilliant idea to knowingly sell high powered weapons to gun traffickers from Mexico in the hopes they could find where they're going and it only wound up getting border patrol agents murdered. Now that the ATF is being grilled on it the response is typical- "we don't know who came up with the idea", as if the plan spontaneously popped into everyone's heads at the ATF for no reason. Noone wants to be charged for being an accomplace for murder, is more like it.

The fact is, the gov't is rife with incompetence and you almost certainly have examples of this of your own. Yet you are consciously ignoring the most obviously blatant reason of them all and conjuring up stupendously inane claims of staged suicide hijackings, planting tons of manufactured evidence, and planting 100 secret agents all over Arlington, all to suit this cruise missile fantasia of yours...and it isn't even yours. It was invented by some conspiracy crackpot over in France specifically to sell a bunch of books and the guy was never within 1000 miles from the Pentagon.

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.

No you're not. You're looking for excuses for why you shouldn't need to believe a plane hit the Pentagon. Eyewitnesses aren't enough. Plane wreckage wasn't enough. The data from the black box wasn't enough. Testimony from the victim's next of kin wasn't enough. We're seeing the no-planers insisting the film footage taken by 10,000 different sources of the plane hitting the south tower isn't enough. I've even shown a concrete example of a large passenger jet flying low to the ground, and even THAT isn't enough. If you're attempting to claim that there's something magical in a crystal clear photograph of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon that will be enough, you are lying through your teeth.

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

Give me an example of a "Popular Mechanics lie". Up unti now the only "lies" I've seen were claims the supposed "OS" never made to begin with; they were complete inventions the truthers made up themselves. Does "Stand down order" ring a bell?

reply to post by ProudBird
I think you meant to say "OB-structing". Now that, would be correct.

Originally posted by dillweed
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.

The data is impeccable.




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

reply to post by anoncoholic

first off the report of the stolen helicopter was made once on 911 by the MSM so don't imply I imagine anything.

Citation?

Second you imply a gradual descent that doesn't explain the level flight to take out the light poles so lets be honest here that it was low enough to affect what was on the ground, grass included at supposed impact site

How tall were those light poles? Think about it, and then recall those videos of commercial airliners performing at air shows. They were low enough that had there been light poles, they could have hit them. American 77's path was only low for the last final seconds, and there was nothing "on the grass" to be affected! He hit a large generator that was parked just outside the Pentagon. Hit it with the right engine, but that was just a fraction of a second before the airplane hit the building.

You come off like you have all the answers so once again ad nauseum, why the need to lie about any of it?

I do not lie about anything. And, when it comes to understanding the actual aspects of the flying, I do know the answers, since I have the experience to understand how it happened, and even how easy it was to do.

I could put you, even with zero experience, into a simulator and coach you a bit....wouldn't take long, you'd get the hang of it quickly, and you would be able to aim and steer the jet to a crash too.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot
The data is impeccable!? Are you deaf, dumb and blind? The 'data' is suspect, you pompous, overbearing windbag. When will you understand that we don't have any respect for the OS?

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by roboe

 

Why do you guys always seem to have things that would seem to support the OS at your fingertips, but have a very hard time explaining your reluctance to question anything 'official'. That doesn't seem natural to me.

Mostly because despite your smug self assurance that you're pulling off a "gotcha!" moment when you post your stuff, the reality is, all you're doing is repeating the exact same rubbish others have been repeating for the last ten years almost verbatim. For one thing, this whole "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" claim was invented by a French author named Thierry Meyssan back in 2002 so we already know exactly what you're going to say before you even say it.

Since I've been on this site, I know I had to explain at least five times that Norm Mineta said "DOES THE ORDER STILL STAND", not "STAND DOWN ORDER", and I absolutely guarantee that I'll be explaining it all over again within the next week or so by yet other self styled investigative reporter who think's he's posting a "gotcha!" moment. There's no conspiracy here. You're simply late to the party.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

The data is impeccable!? Are you deaf, dumb and blind? The 'data' is suspect, you pompous, overbearing windbag. When will you understand that we don't have any respect for the OS?

And there you have the heart of the matter.

I will know in the future not to confuse you with facts, obviously ignorance is bliss...

I continue seeing posters call others "truthers" as insults! What do the ones who bash so called truthers, call themselves? I imagine "Liars" since it is opposite the word truth.

This will never be figured out. It was illusion and magic tricks. Planes turning some buildings to dust. One building turning to dust because of some fire. When has fire every turned a building to dust? Once magic plane hit the Pentagon but the size hole was smaller than the plane, yet it went completely through the Pentagon leaving an exit hole. This was a magic plane as well. It vaporized when it hit the brick wall of the Pentagon. The last magic plane left a small gouge in the ground and the entire plane vanished like the Pentagon plane.

Somehow Osama knew the military of the worlds strongest nation was no match for his plan of attack. The strongest nation in the world could not stop Osama’s magic plane from flying into the Pentagon even after planes had already crashed into two very important buildings in America for the first time in history. Osama must have rigged the security cameras to stop recording at the Pentagon just before his magic plane hit. No wonder Obama dumped his ass in the ocean without pictures. I would be ashamed also if the strongest nation could not stop this cave dwellers terrorist plan.
I wonder how Osama knew which planes to highjack while he sent in 19 Saudi men to do his business. Osama must have been playing the Illuminati Card game and noticed how the game shows WTC attacked and one card showing the Pentagon on fire after an attack. I guess that is where he got his info to stage the biggest attack in history.

Sept 11, 1941 – Ground is broken for the construction of The Pentagon. Sixty years before they were hit.
Sept 11, 1990 Papa Bush announcing NWO exactly 11 years before Baby Bush is leading the nation during the largest assault on America.
Sept 11, 2001- Baby Bush brings in the NWO. Order out of Chaos is their motto.

Peace to all

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

The data is impeccable!? Are you deaf, dumb and blind? The 'data' is suspect, you pompous, overbearing windbag. When will you understand that we don't have any respect for the OS?

Friendly debate technique, really.
When will you understand why people don't have any respect for 9/11 truthers?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Give me an example of a "Popular Mechanics lie". Up unti now the only "lies" I've seen were claims the supposed "OS" never made to begin with; they were complete inventions the truthers made up themselves. Does "Stand down order" ring a bell?

"Debunking 911 myths" and being caught lying about the proof. Personally I find it sad that you claim to have answered yet hadn't even bothered to listen to the audio clip but instead imply there is nothing there. Had you listened to that 24 minute clip you would know truth from lies and apparently you are still unwilling to address it.

Dropped the ball? BS! They gave the ball away by intent. How else could an attack have happened at just the right time to see all our defenses down? Stand down ineffingdeed

You are saying that the video of testimony that was later recanted was a misunderstanding or one of semantics? Again more bs spin on an inconvenient truth because the scope and depth of 911 wasn't realized by many due to a little thing called compartmentalization ... need to know.

You also imply this entire 911 was a truther creation and ignore the guilt which is the basis of truth seeking in the first place, not fabrication of evidence to whitewash guilt.

But you already know this , you aren't fooling us all.

Nothing happens by chance, not even your feigning ignorance of the Popular Mechanics lie.

Like it was pointed out above, you pro's are well versed in every aspect.

Except the one thing that matters and that little thing called truth is a road you are unwilling to travel for reasons known only unto yourselves and God.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by roboe

 

Why do you guys always seem to have things that would seem to support the OS at your fingertips, but have a very hard time explaining your reluctance to question anything 'official'. That doesn't seem natural to me.

Because, as GoodOldDave, has already pointed out, this is stuff that has been debunked continually for the past 5+ years (probably more than that, but I didn't really get into 9/11 Conspiracies until 2006).

Do I think there was some CYA going on after 9/11? Sure. Hell, we know there was, since the DoD and USAF were called on it, by that favourite truther whipping boy, the 9/11 Commision.

Do I think the Saudis were deeply involved in financing various aspects of Al Qaeda? Hell yes, bin Ladens branch of Islam is right up there with the extremely conservative Saudi clerics. And we know from Steven Wright that Osama bin Laden would frequently be visited by princes etc. from the Arabian peninsula, bringing over cash and weapons for the cause.

Do I think there is stuff we'll never know about 9/11? Hell yes, mostly because those who could give us the answers are dead (ie. the hijackers, Osama bin Laden), behind bars and unlikely to ever speak publically via a lawyer or reporter (KSM, Ramzi what'shisname), or have decided to cover their rear posterior by pretending they didn't do anything wrong (the alphabet soup).

reply to post by dillweed


What part of the data is suspect? Was it all a plant, just like bodies and plane parts after the missile attack/demolition/hologram/DEW?

I note that when you find yourself in a corner, you respond by personal attacks and appeals to incredulity.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by anoncoholic

 

first off the report of the stolen helicopter was made once on 911 by the MSM so don't imply I imagine anything.

Citation?

Second you imply a gradual descent that doesn't explain the level flight to take out the light poles so lets be honest here that it was low enough to affect what was on the ground, grass included at supposed impact site

How tall were those light poles? Think about it, and then recall those videos of commercial airliners performing at air shows. They were low enough that had there been light poles, they could have hit them. American 77's path was only low for the last final seconds, and there was nothing "on the grass" to be affected! He hit a large generator that was parked just outside the Pentagon. Hit it with the right engine, but that was just a fraction of a second before the airplane hit the building.

You come off like you have all the answers so once again ad nauseum, why the need to lie about any of it?

I do not lie about anything. And, when it comes to understanding the actual aspects of the flying, I do know the answers, since I have the experience to understand how it happened, and even how easy it was to do.

I could put you, even with zero experience, into a simulator and coach you a bit....wouldn't take long, you'd get the hang of it quickly, and you would be able to aim and steer the jet to a crash too.

citation?

Here, waste your time satisfying your disbelief, I am not the one in denial

www.archive.org.../CNN_20010914_170000_CNN_Live_Today/start/17:40:00UTC/chan/CNN

This link is really getting slow to load, probably due to it being posted everywhere.

Perhaps you misunderstood about my asking for an answer to the lies, I wasn't implying your lies as those I can surmise readily... I am asking you to explain away these lies...
you can skip the first half, it is only this liar grooming the listener to his credibility that he destroys in no time at all

Google Video Link

hey, take the question back to the think tank if you need, just answer why the need was there to produce a book, publish a magazine article, and then go on a radio interview to try to sell it all when it turns out to be all an obvious lie that failed.

There can be only one conclusion. Truth needs no explanation and all we have had out of all you deniers is explanation after improbable explanation no matter how plausible because the simple fact remains that truth doesn't need selling it is self evident.

Now before you click reply, listen to the evidence before implying you don't have a clue.

edit: I inadvertently posted a bookmark that is not 911 but the Friday after 911. I was searching for something and apparently booked it. You can click on the correct date though and it is still there

Originally posted by C46driver

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

The data is impeccable!? Are you deaf, dumb and blind? The 'data' is suspect, you pompous, overbearing windbag. When will you understand that we don't have any respect for the OS?

Friendly debate technique, really.
When will you understand why people don't have any respect for 9/11 truthers?

one has to have self respect before they can respect others