The pentagon on 9/11: An open debate.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by dave52

Ddum / Denton, would you rather be hit with a bird or a lamp post...?

Neither please dave. U?

[ex sheep]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

I've not played flight sim in years (unfortunately) its a cracking simulater.

But yes it maybe a little tricky to novices like you and I, however Hani Hanjour. Had some genuine not simulated, genuine air miles under his belt, and knew how to fly a plane.

I know what I'm talking about I have had all the flight simulators from 98 up til Flight simulator x, passed all the check test rides, but gave it up when I started to figure out that the world is not what we think it is, as it was wasting my time

[denton]

Originally Posted by ex sheep

I know what I'm talking about I have had all the flight simulators from 98 up til Flight simulator x, passed all the check test rides, but gave it up when I started to figure out that the world is not what we think it is, as it was wasting my time

Does anyone conclusively know who actually flew the planes? I mean, at what point did the hijackers take the stick?

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by ex sheep

I know what I'm talking about I have had all the flight simulators from 98 up til Flight simulator x, passed all the check test rides, but gave it up when I started to figure out that the world is not what we think it is, as it was wasting my time

So you being the expert, should no that there was infact quite little to do, as they had already taken off and they certainly didn't land.

[ex sheep]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

So you being the expert, should no that there was infact quite little to do, as they had already taken off and they certainly didn't land.

No there is a hell of a lot to do, especially with buzzers going off left right and centre, and as I said before to get onto a direct hit with those towers and hit them smack on just beggers belief, but if you want to believe some box cutter rookies did it, then fair dues to you

You are wasting your time with me on this, I see through it

Look at the bigger picture.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by ex sheep

No there is a hell of a lot to do, especially with buzzers going off left right and centre, and as I said before to get onto a direct hit with those towers and hit them smack on just beggers belief, but if you want to believe some box cutter rookies did it, then fair dues to you

You are wasting your time with me on this, I see through it

Look at the bigger picture.

No there is nothing there that they wouldn't have had the ability to deal with, you're making it aound like every buzzer was going off, many of which can be switched off.

Why don't you start a thread about the 'bigger picture'.

[mishy]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

No there is nothing there that they wouldn't have had the ability to deal with, you're making it aound like every buzzer was going off, many of which can be switched off.

Why don't you start a thread about the 'bigger picture'.

A good place to start...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_p-30RuE3A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_p-30RuE3A

[ex sheep]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

No there is nothing there that they wouldn't have had the ability to deal with, you're making it aound like every buzzer was going off, many of which can be switched off.

Why don't you start a thread about the 'bigger picture'.

Oh yeah I forgot it was an open debate

You guys make me smile

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by ex sheep

Oh yeah I forgot it was an open debate

You guys make me smile

My thread, and what I mean by open is, people can openly discuss their theories etc on this topic ie the pentagon. The 'bigger picture' will probably lead to a much wider debate with off topic issues, so there's no harm in starting a new thread is there?

[wispy]

Originally Posted by dave52

Had the terrorists dialled the engines right down as if coming in to land...? That was good of them. So they hit the Pentagon quite slowly then? So, where were the wings...?

Yup, you're right. In the vid I posted they would have been powering the engines down. It was a bit tongue in cheek. But I wondered if they also take off over the road depending on wind conditions and if it was such a problem with jet thrust to road users, then they road would have to be off limits during take offs.

Maybe some cars were buffeted at the Pentagon. Maybe some were moved or blown sideways. But as there are no reports that I am aware of then I can't categorically state this.

But truthers seem to say, cars should have been blown over if there was a plane. They weren't, therefore it's evidence against a plane being there.

It seems to be an incontrovertable fact for truthers. What is this statement based on though. All I've seen is a youtube vidoe of a car blown over by a stationary jet and some supposition.

Forget the fact that the pnetagon jet was some feet off the ground and travelling at they say 500mph.

Has anyone carried out a credible assessment. I don't mean 'i saw the youtube video, the plane passed over the freeway, therefore the cars would have been blown over'.

I mean assesssing the relative position of the plane to the road, its height, time over road, the residual effect of the engine thrust at these points, and the rest. But no we haven't got that. All we have is guess work.

As reagrds the lamposts. Yes some were smashed over. It was a big plane. Some of the lamposts were the safety type as I understand it and are lightweight and meant to break up or off their mountings when hit by cars, never mind planes.

There's photographs of damage to generators and fences, not just lamposts, which points to a plane impact.

Also, witness statements confirming they saw a plane. Wasn't a taxi hit by one of the lamposts and the driver suffered minor injuries?

But, no we just get flim flam, conjecture and supposition without any proper evidence.

Also September Clues is held up as some form of gold standard of evidence. But on just one link I saw there in another thread, there at least 3 misleading, if not downright deceitful, bits of information.

But hey ho, if truthers want to have their little beliefs, then fair do's.

Just expect debunkers and bedunkers to have a comment or two about it.

[marky78]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Do you understand now why the lampost issue is different to the columns? As Denton and I have explained why.

Well come on, you said the bird would have been stationary reletive to the aircraft, explain?

It depends on a few things, a lampost has more mass, baasically if you hit a car and your doing 50 and the car you hit is doing 25 in the same direction, they'll be damage, try it where you're doing 50 and the car is smashing into you head on at 25 there will be more damage. So in other words a bird head on would cause more damage, the disign of the wings and bird could play a part in whether it would cut into the wing or bounce off and the angle of impact.

I don't think you can use that car analogy unless the bird can fly half the speed of the plane.

[marky78]

I've just done a quick google for you and that plane in the pic has a cruising speed of approx 230mph, large birds tend to cruise about 20-30mph.

so a the bird caused that damage by impacting at anywhere between 200-260mph.

(rough estimate of course)

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by marky78

I don't think you can use that car analogy unless the bird can fly half the speed of the plane.

Well given your research, let's say its 200MPH car and a 30 MPH bird so that's 230 MPH combined speed, still more energy in the impact than a stationary bird or car. Anyway, enough said I think we both get the idea to be honest.

We can use anologies all day long, as wispy said nobody as far as I'm aware has done a reconstruction of what happened, so we won't know all the answers, but we know there are witnesses who say the plane flew over their cars and one gentlemans car was struck by a lightpole, which the plane knocked over, what do you make of his eyewitness account?

[marky78]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Well given your research, let's say its 200MPH car and a 30 MPH bird so that's 230 MPH combined speed, still more energy in the impact than a stationary bird or car. Anyway, enough said I think we both get the idea to be honest.

We can use anologies all day long, as wispy said nobody as far as I'm aware has done a reconstruction of what happened, so we won't know all the answers, but we know there are witnesses who say the plane flew over their cars and one gentlemans car was struck by a lightpole, which the plane knocked over, what do you make of his eyewitness account?

fair enough, yes wings are delicate.



well as there is very very little physical evidence of a plane at the site and I therefore don't believe a plane hit so I must conclude that he is lying, and no I don't have evidence or proof that he is a liar.

[marky78]

are the terrorists supposed to have hit their target by visual flying alone? I have flown a little cessna from a local airport and wanted to fly over where I live and the pilot said he did not know which way to go, so he sat back and I flew by trying to recognise the roads and the rough direction I needed to go in, eventually flying over a built up area I was trying to figure out which town it was to figure out which direction to fly from there only then to realise I was actually over my town!

so flying at about 1800feet in a slow little plane and I still struggled to recognise my home town from the air.

how did the terrorists manage it?


while flying a little cessna was relatively easy I have since tried flying a large boeing on a flight simulator and again 'basic' flight control is quite easy but after several attempts I couldn't even get near to lining it up visually with the runway, so to hit these targets with the accuracy they did seems very suspect to me.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by marky78

are the terrorists supposed to have hit their target by visual flying alone? I have flown a little cessna from a local airport and wanted to fly over where I live and the pilot said he did not know which way to go, so he sat back and I flew by trying to recognise the roads and the rough direction I needed to go in, eventually flying over a built up area I was trying to figure out which town it was to figure out which direction to fly from there only then to realise I was actually over my town!

so flying at about 1800feet in a slow little plane and I still struggled to recognise my home town from the air.

how did the terrorists manage it?


while flying a little cessna was relatively easy I have since tried flying a large boeing on a flight simulator and again 'basic' flight control is quite easy but after several attempts I couldn't even get near to lining it up visually with the runway, so to hit these targets with the accuracy they did seems very suspect to me.

I can see your point as to be fair there was hardly any recogniseable plane parts to see, but when you learn that it was a high speed impact all that becomes logical. I don't think he is lying as many other people reported the same thing at the same time at the same location.

The plane will have a GPS system so they can plot the location if need be, but perhaps they just knew where they were going.

[wispy]

Originally Posted by marky78

fair enough, yes wings are delicate.



well as there is very very little physical evidence of a plane at the site and I therefore don't believe a plane hit so I must conclude that he is lying, and no I don't have evidence or proof that he is a liar.

I may be shooting myself in the foot but here you go.

http://911review.org/brad.com/pentagon/lightpoles/

Yes it is a truther post it seems but at least it has photos of the lamposts and the taxi in question.

The lamposts were in fact the the easy knock over type so I'm guessing the plane was able to knock these over fairly easy.

[believenothing]

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/spee...x?speechid=430

9/10/01

The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.

And were all destroyed one day later because the impact zone was where the auditing team had been re-located to. Destroyed along with all of the evidence. That's nearly $3 trillion adjusted for inflation. TRILLION. Remember when they talk about budget cuts involving years, it's usually in the billions. $3 trillion is a big deal.

Among the flight 77 victims were a senior executive at the Defense Department and a budget analyst/director of the programming and fiscal economics division who worked at the Pentagon. Along with a guy who worked in the section impacted. And various Boeing and aerospace/defense related people. A truly bizarre and ironic group of passengers considering the Pentagon was involved.

Consider the source. Rumsfeld is the one who made a 'Freudian' slip and said missile within days before Thierry Meyssan's 'hunt the Boeing' website was created. The same Rumsfeld who said that $2.3 trillion was missing from the Pentagon one day before 9/11. Monday is an unusual day for bad news. Thierry Meyssan has become very questionable in recent years.

The 'evidence' is deceiving. MS paint pics that show fire spray obscuring the damage. Pre-selected shots of the lawn that don't show much debris. Aircraft parts that are labeled as not being from a 757 but when you actually look at the equivalent parts on a 757 you find out that they are (which says a lot for the credibility of the people who said they aren't).

Then you have the self-proclaimed 'experts' like Gordon 'disinformation' Duff saying that an aluminum plane would not have done that kind of damage. One eyewitness who could be a liar saying she didn't see a plane with too much eyewitnesses who did to the contrary. If it was more than just a plane, it would still be easy to crash the plane there to help out the story rather than risk a conspiracy of disposing it elsewhere.

Then there are disinfo piss buckets like Jim Fetzer who say that the Pentagon is a litmus test and if you think it was a plane, you're an idiot. Fuck Jim FATzer, that well-poisoning jerk.

9/11 doesn't need the Pentagon to prove that the official story is a joke, but this missile story has served it's purpose. To shield the fact that $2.3 trillion+ is unaccounted for. How much did 9/11 cost to fund? Probably $2.3 trillion. Yet another straw man to argue over while Michael Chertoff and his CIA/Mossadi buds just sit back and laugh and sell his cancer machines to airports.

[denton]

Originally Posted by marky78

are the terrorists supposed to have hit their target by visual flying alone? I have flown a little cessna from a local airport and wanted to fly over where I live and the pilot said he did not know which way to go, so he sat back and I flew by trying to recognise the roads and the rough direction I needed to go in, eventually flying over a built up area I was trying to figure out which town it was to figure out which direction to fly from there only then to realise I was actually over my town!

so flying at about 1800feet in a slow little plane and I still struggled to recognise my home town from the air.

how did the terrorists manage it?


while flying a little cessna was relatively easy I have since tried flying a large boeing on a flight simulator and again 'basic' flight control is quite easy but after several attempts I couldn't even get near to lining it up visually with the runway, so to hit these targets with the accuracy they did seems very suspect to me.

I'm guessing that your house isn't a massive Pentagon. They're quite distinctive! Also, your pilot would have had no reason to have researched and learnt where your house would be. These guys had a very clear motive.

[wispy]

Originally Posted by believenothing

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/spee...x?speechid=430

9/10/01



And were all destroyed one day later because the impact zone was where the auditing team had been re-located to. Destroyed along with all of the evidence. That's nearly $3 trillion adjusted for inflation. TRILLION. Remember when they talk about budget cuts involving years, it's usually in the billions. $3 trillion is a big deal.

Among the flight 77 victims were a senior executive at the Defense Department and a budget analyst/director of the programming and fiscal economics division who worked at the Pentagon. Along with a guy who worked in the section impacted. And various Boeing and aerospace/defense related people. A truly bizarre and ironic group of passengers considering the Pentagon was involved.

Consider the source. Rumsfeld is the one who made a 'Freudian' slip and said missile within days before Thierry Meyssan's 'hunt the Boeing' website was created. The same Rumsfeld who said that $2.3 trillion was missing from the Pentagon one day before 9/11. Monday is an unusual day for bad news. Thierry Meyssan has become very questionable in recent years.

The 'evidence' is deceiving. MS paint pics that show fire spray obscuring the damage. Pre-selected shots of the lawn that don't show much debris. Aircraft parts that are labeled as not being from a 757 but when you actually look at the equivalent parts on a 757 you find out that they are (which says a lot for the credibility of the people who said they aren't).

Then you have the self-proclaimed 'experts' like Gordon 'disinformation' Duff saying that an aluminum plane would not have done that kind of damage. One eyewitness who could be a liar saying she didn't see a plane with too much eyewitnesses who did to the contrary. If it was more than just a plane, it would still be easy to crash the plane there to help out the story rather than risk a conspiracy of disposing it elsewhere.

Then there are disinfo piss buckets like Jim Fetzer who say that the Pentagon is a litmus test and if you think it was a plane, you're an idiot. Fuck Jim FATzer, that well-poisoning jerk.

9/11 doesn't need the Pentagon to prove that the official story is a joke, but this missile story has served it's purpose. To shield the fact that $2.3 trillion+ is unaccounted for. How much did 9/11 cost to fund? Probably $2.3 trillion. Yet another straw man to argue over while Michael Chertoff and his CIA/Mossadi buds just sit back and laugh and sell his cancer machines to airports.

It seems the 'missing' trillions is another myth.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Missing_Trillions

It's not that they were missing, it's that they couldn't be accounted for and tracked within the Byzantine auditing system within the DoD which is what Rumsfeld was saying in the speech you linked to.