|
Post by shred on Mar 17, 2013 12:01:16 GMT -5
Amongst Loose Change's many lies it has been postulated that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon they claim it would be impossible for a Boeing 757 in Ground Effect to hit the Pentagon at full speed. Their allegation is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 17, 2013 13:15:13 GMT -5
The video you provided a link to shows a 757 performing impressive maneuvers. And I assume it's being piloted by a professional pilot? There's nothing in the video that says anything about the pilot. There also nothing in the video that says it's not remote controlled either. There's also nothing in the video that accurately matches the known trajectory of the alleged aircraft that hit the Pentagon. There's also nothing in the video that makes any claims about the speed of the airliner or that it matches the known speed of the alleged airliner that hit the Pentagon or the height from ground. It is also at best just a simulation of some kind, not the real thing.
So given the above, it seems to me you're trying to mix apples and oranges. And as usual, your only agenda is to try to attack, silence and/or discredit those who question the official narrative, which of course, you've never questioned, at least not in this forum. And more often than not your tools include lies, fabrications, diversions and of course, juvenile name calling.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 17, 2013 18:42:39 GMT -5
Get real, passengers on the hijacked planes contacted their loved ones via Airphones from those planes, the hijackings were genuine. Journalist Barbara Olson phoned her Husband Ted from Flight 77 shortly before she was murdered as the plane slammed into the Pentagon.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 17, 2013 19:52:07 GMT -5
Get real, passengers on the hijacked planes contacted their loved ones via Airphones from those planes, the hijackings were genuine. Journalist Barbara Olson phoned her Husband Ted from Flight 77 shortly before she was murdered as the plane slammed into the Pentagon. Why do you keep changing the subject? You started this thread about the Pentagon and showed a video of some airplane maneuvers that have nothing to do with 9/11. Then when I respond to it, you want to switch the topic. Stick to one thing please. We can discuss the above after if you insist. It's good you bring up all these issues. You see, there are many, many questions about 9/11. I believe 500 questions were submitted to the 9/11 Commission by those who lost loved ones on 9/11, the Commission answered only a very few and many of their answers led to other questions. Only a completely ignorant fool would believe all the questions have been answered. Here are unanswered questions that the Family Steering Committee submitted to the 9/11 Commission. www.911independentcommission.org/questions.htmlWhy is it more important to you to attack and/or criticize those who question the official narrative than to ask questions yourself about what happened on 9/11? Are you interested in getting answers to the above list of questions?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 18, 2013 1:01:53 GMT -5
Get real, passengers on the hijacked planes contacted their loved ones via Airphones from those planes, the hijackings were genuine. Journalist Barbara Olson phoned her Husband Ted from Flight 77 shortly before she was murdered as the plane slammed into the Pentagon. You are misinformed Olsen a Bush employee story kept changing as the facts showed he was lying, The only record of Barbara Olson making a call that morning was 30 second call that didn't go through, So her husband is darn liar.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 18, 2013 1:09:40 GMT -5
Amongst Loose Change's many lies it has been postulated that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon they claim it would be impossible for a Boeing 757 in Ground Effect to hit the Pentagon at full speed. Their allegation is ridiculous. Why did the FBI instantly confiscate all video footage from private businesses around the Pentagon that day and refuse to release it? Why is it ones who got out through the hole in the Pentagon say there was no aircraft debris?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 18, 2013 5:06:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 18, 2013 5:12:44 GMT -5
Still photos can easily be altered plus them debris photos could have came from any crash site. I'll go by eye witnesses and the fact they stole all video from the surrounding area
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 18, 2013 6:08:55 GMT -5
Eye witnesses saw a 757, seven of those eyewitnesses were pilots and recognised it straight away. USA Today's Mike Walter identified an American Airlines jet that was really low being flown like a "cruise missile with wings". His comment has often been taken out of context and misrepresented by conspiracists.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 18, 2013 8:00:56 GMT -5
The following is a link to what pilots have to say. Of course, I take it you will likely claim that these people are all "so-called experts", however you can google all these people to check out their backgrounds. Of course, you can always make a claim that google is a fake too. After all, it seems to me you're heavily into conspiracy theories. You do believe government's conspiracy theory is 100% fact, right? patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 18, 2013 8:33:56 GMT -5
I am a Pilot.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 18, 2013 9:13:38 GMT -5
So then if that's true you can verify that those people are legitimate. I would also wonder why you don't question anything about the Pentagon crash. As a pilot, you would know that in an airliner crash, people such as the FBI don't go around just picking up a handful of pieces and that there should be a huge amount of debris (airplane parts), bodies, etc. and that in an investigation, the investigators reconstruct the airplane from all the parts found. So that didn't happen. Do you question why that is Mr. Pilot? Also Mr. Pilot, the link I provided to the pilots who question 9/11 contains many questions asked by those pilots and a lot of skepticism. Did you read any of it? If you did, what is your opinion with regard to their concerns?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 18, 2013 9:32:35 GMT -5
I never said they aren't pilots. But they aren't being truthful about 9/11. Four of the hijackers were commercial pilots one of whom wasn't current on his licence. I fly Schleicher ASK13 and ASK21 gliders (aka sailplanes) one of the tuggies from my club is an ex airline pilot who has flown 747's to such diverse places as the old Kai Tak Hong Kong airport & JFK New York. Modern airliners have yaw dampers fly by wire, gps navigation, they're quite easy to fly they used to be easy to hijack and crash. In 1999 Yuji Nishizawa hijacked All Nippon Airways Flight 61 with a kitchen knife, he murdered one of the pilots and briefly took control of the plane before he was overpowered by passengers. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Nippon_Airways_Flight_61
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 18, 2013 10:02:09 GMT -5
"I never said they aren't pilots."
You said many times all these people are "so-called experts". So now they're really experts? Which is it?
"But they aren't being truthful about 9/11."
So they're all lying? They're all also lying that they have many questions about the official narrative? What are they not being truthful about exactly?
"Four of the hijackers were commercial pilots one of whom wasn't current on his licence."
From the official account that is not true. They first took flying lessons before 9/11 on single engine aircraft. The one who allegedly flew the plane into the Pentagon was described by his trainer as someone who couldn't fly a paper airplane. But please correct me if I'm wrong and show me where it says 4 of them were commercial pilots.
The rest of your post has nothing to do with this discussion, it's just another meaningless diversion.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 18, 2013 11:43:30 GMT -5
If they're saying no plane hit the pentagon yes, if they're saying Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, yes, if they're saying the Hijackers didn't include four trained commercial pilots, yes.
Wikipedia
wikipedia
wikipedia
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 18, 2013 12:04:00 GMT -5
"If they're saying no plane hit the pentagon yes, if they're saying Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, yes, if they're saying the Hijackers didn't include four trained commercial pilots, yes."
Those aren't lies, they're opinions. But that's not all they're saying. They have many questions. Don't you? I've never seen you ask one single question. I personally did not see what hit the Pentagon in any of the frames from the only video that shows an explosion at the Pentagon. Apparently, I'm far from the only one. Some of these people who should know what an airliner looks like claim they never saw an airliner hit the Pentagon either. So why would characterize these opinions as "lies".
A real lie is you saying NIST made a claim in their report but can't back it up by pointing the page number(s) in the report where you believe the claim was made when repeatedly asked to.
Also, you keep saying "IF", did you actually read their comments or are you just speculating?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 18, 2013 12:33:01 GMT -5
Questions are ok but questions aren't answers.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 18, 2013 12:40:50 GMT -5
Questions are ok but questions aren't answers. That's right Einstein. People have many questions about 9/11 that have never been answered. So they form opinions and ask those questions. And that's why intelligent people ask questions and ignorant fools believe all questions about 9/11 have been answered and attack and denigrate those who have opinions and ask questions. And like I said, I've never seen you ask one single question about the official narrative so I can only assume you believe all questions have been answered. But I certainly have seen you attack and denigrate those who do ask questions and whose opinions do not agree with yours.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 19, 2013 4:30:21 GMT -5
You want to know my questions (because I have questions of my own about 11th Sept 2001 of my own):- How did men on FBI wanted lists get into the USA at all ? Why were 19 mujahids allowed to carry pocket knives and Stanley type knives onto the planes ? Why in the light of the 1999 knife hijacking and control takeover of the All Nippon airways flight 61 by Yuji Nishizawa weren't airline cockpit doors securely locked in flight to prevent a repeat ? Why didn't the USA go to war against Al Qaida following the US Embassy bombings of 1998 or the attack on the USS Cole in 2000?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 19, 2013 7:25:00 GMT -5
You want to know my questions (because I have questions of my own about 11th Sept 2001 of my own):- How did men on FBI wanted lists get into the USA at all ? Why were 19 mujahids allowed to carry pocket knives and Stanley type knives onto the planes ? Why in the light of the 1999 knife hijacking and control takeover of the All Nippon airways flight 61 by Yuji Nishizawa weren't airline cockpit doors securely locked in flight to prevent a repeat ? Why didn't the USA go to war against Al Qaida following the US Embassy bombings of 1998 or the attack on the USS Cole in 2000? It's good to know you have questions. That means you don't believe all the questions have been answered. Not one of your questions is about the official account of what happened on 9/11 though (except maybe the second one, however, the claim is that they used box cutters). Does that mean you believe all those questions have been answered?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 19, 2013 11:18:33 GMT -5
The 'official' account as you put it, is the correct one. I questioned it at the time and it's still the only account that stands up. The idea that it was a staged faked terrorist attack is ridiculous, the number of people who would all have to be in on it (not to mention New York Firefighters) would be enormous, no delivery method for thermite exists to support Steven Jones theorem nor will he submit his thesis to a genuine science journal such as ASCE (or even the New Scientist) for peer review (a decision that effectively cost him his job at Brigham Young University www.deseretnews.com/article/645199800/BYU-places-911-truth-professor-on-paid-leave.html he chose resignation instead of humiliation ) .
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 19, 2013 12:49:48 GMT -5
"The 'official' account as you put it, is the correct one."That's your opinion. "I questioned it at the time and it's still the only account that stands up."It may stand up for you but it doesn't stand up for many reasons. The 9/11 Commission members (the 9/11 Commission Report is part of the official account) have publicly admitted that their report was based on lies. NIST (also part of the official account) publicly admitted several crucial "mistakes" but did not change anything in their report as a result of their admissions. Then there are literally thousands of questions that have never been answered or inadequately answered as well as a ton of evidence that has been uncovered since these "investigations" were finalized. Not to mention that there has never been an independent (read non-political) forensic criminal investigation ever conducted into the events surrounding and on 9/11. "The idea that it was a staged faked terrorist attack is ridiculous"No actually false flags are prevalent throughout history so the possibility of 9/11 being a false flag is quite possible, logical and highly likely. Especially given the obvious STAND DOWN and that Bush and his administration ignored all the warnings. That is not to say that it was a "staged faked terrorist attack" or not, just that we don't really know exactly what it was to this day. "the number of people who would all have to be in on it (not to mention New York Firefighters) would be enormous, no delivery method for thermite exists to support Steven Jones theorem nor will he submit his thesis to a genuine science journal such as ASCE (or even the New Scientist) for peer review (a decision that effectively cost him his job at Brigham Young University www.deseretnews.com/article/64519....paid-leave.html he chose resignation instead of humiliation ) ."That's all just speculative opinion and totally irrelevant to what actually may have happened on 9/11. And that's what intelligent people want to know, what actually did happen and not a bunch of lies and theories such as the fake invented NIST column 79 theory that is based on fraud. Your attempt to try to discredit those who have done years of research because they don't believe all the lies, and uncovered evidence is just part and parcel of your fear that the official account indeed may have been a bunch of lies.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 20, 2013 2:19:57 GMT -5
How many people would have to be involved including thousands of office workers in the WTC buildings, firefighters, clean up workers, airport workers, airlines, NIST, and further afield the University of Sydney, the University of Manchester, the Steel in Fire Forum (S.T.I.F.F.)? Your postulation of an inside job is frankly, daft.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 20, 2013 7:53:26 GMT -5
"How many people would have to be involved"To do what? If you mean to be involved in a false flag I have not a clue. That's what an investigation is for, to find out if, how, when, who, where, etc. "Your postulation of an inside job is frankly, daft."That's your opinion, coming from someone who make absurd claims about "so-called" experts and swallowing lies as truth from admitted liars and frauds. Even if the entire official conspiracy theory is 100% right on the money, that there was a STAND DOWN is, by itself, an "inside job" and that's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact. That nothing was done to try to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attack and just allow it to run its course is settled history, not fiction. See Point G: www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 20, 2013 11:23:44 GMT -5
"How many people would have to be involved"To do what? If you mean to be involved in a false flag I have not a clue. That's what an investigation is for, to find out if, how, when, who, where, etc. It's been investigated, it wasn't a 'false flag'. "Your postulation of an inside job is frankly, daft."That's your opinion. It's not a theory it's 100% fact. in your opinion. They deactivated the transponders on the hijacked planes. Air Defence radar looks out not in, even Chain Home High and Chain Home Low in WW2 were outward looking radar that did not cover the skies over Britain. USA copied Hugh Dowding's Chain Home procedures when it developed US air defence strategy and the policies weren't questioned until after 11th Sept 2001. Back in 1999 when Golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet depressurised, it took an hour and 15 minutes for the USAF to intercept and investigate and it's transponder was broadcasting the whole time. What you're looking at is a cockup not a conspiracy my friend. If you were at the controls of this plane and armed men came through the cockpit doors, what chance would you have of defending yourself from a knife attack to your throat from behind ? ? ? NONE. Once hijacked, flying one into a building would have been child's play, it's not as if they were having to obey instrument flight rules and land it at night.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 20, 2013 14:42:35 GMT -5
"Even if the entire official conspiracy theory is 100% right on the money,
It's not a theory it's 100% fact."No it's not fact, it's a theory based on DOCUMENTED and admitted lies and fraud. The only thing about it that's 100% is that the members of the 9/11 Commission publicly admitted they were lied to. That is irrefutable and not opinion or theory. "They deactivated the transponders on the hijacked planes.""They" who? Or so you were told. Or perhaps you were on all 4 planes and saw that for yourself? "What you're looking at is a cockup not a conspiracy my friend."No it looks like the cockpit of an airliner, not a "cockup". "If you were at the controls of this plane and armed men came through the cockpit doors, what chance would you have of defending yourself from a knife attack to your throat from behind NONE."I'm not at the controls of any plane and never was so I don't know. From what I understand, some of the pilots were trained in the armed forces and the story was that the alleged hijackers used box cutters not knives. I also understand that it takes only a couple of seconds to enter a hijack code yet not a single hijack code was sent from any of the 4 airliners. "Once hijacked, flying one into a building would have been child's play"That's a joke right? You claim you're a pilot and you posted a photo of the cockpit of an airliner and you want to make a claim that flying a large commercial airliner into a building with no help from ground control is "child's play"? And these alleged hijackers barely knew how to fly a single engine private aircraft, if they even really knew how. Did you read the comments from real pilots at the link I provided? Here's the link again, go read some of their comments, especially the ones about flying airplanes into the Pentagon and the towers. They not only contradict your claim but make you sound like you know nothing about piloting aircraft. patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.htmlBut one doesn't even have to be a pilot to figure out from just looking at the picture of the cockpit you provided that flying a large commercial airliner into a building or into the Pentagon with uncanny precision is not "child's play" by any stretch. Then again, stretching is what you do with almost all your posts. So your claim about being a pilot is obviously just another one of your typical lies. It doesn't sound like you understand anything about flying large commercial airliners.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 20, 2013 17:07:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 20, 2013 17:55:42 GMT -5
"On July 8, Mohammed Atta began another puzzling trip to Europe. First, he flew from Miami to Zurich. Swiss prosecutors say he spent two-and-a-half hours in the airport. He used an ATM card four times and withdrew 1,700 Swiss francs. In Duty Free, he bought two Swiss Army knives and some Swiss chocolate and then he flew back to Spain to Madrid."
And you got this from a CNN "transcript". But the official story claims they used box cutters, not swiss army knives. There is a difference. Not that the whole thing has much relevance anyway.
"So as you sit down in your chair reading this imagine someone quickly coming at you from behind using one to slit your throat, you wouldn't have time to defend yourself. By the time you looked around, the damage would already be done. You'd be dead. That's what happened to those poor pilots when the hijackers burst into their cockpits, they were murdered in their seats."
And you know this because you saw it with your own eyes or that's what you were told as part of the official conspiracy theory?
And how does any of this change your claim about "child's play" or the opinions of real pilots about amateurs flying into buildings with near perfect accuracy? Or are you just skipping all that because you know you tripped over your own nonsense and trying to pretend you never said anything about "child's play"?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 20, 2013 18:15:11 GMT -5
Dude, the pilot and co pilot, where on earth are they going to be sitting other than in the cockpit at the controls of the aircraft flying the damned thing when the terrorists burst in ? Logic man logic. Put yourself in the mindset of a pilot, you're at the controls doing a job you're not thinking about self defence for a second you're thinking about flying safely looking out for other aircraft as you do so. Their eyes are on the sky not on the door waiting for intruders to burst in at any second. Now watch this from 8 minutes and 06 seconds to 10 minutes 26 seconds a novice pilot with no prior training flies and lands a plane with no previous training. Think how easy would it be to fly airliners in perfect Visual Flight Rules conditions, to crash them precisely into the Twin Towers & into the Pentagon. VERY EASY. Oh and this is me (on the left) : And here's a pic I took during my pilot training: That's the largest coal fired power station in Europe (and magnet for Greenpeace protesters) that is Drax in North Yorkshire England.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 20, 2013 20:40:40 GMT -5
"the pilot and co pilot, where on earth are they going to be sitting other than in the cockpit at the controls of the aircraft flying the damned thing when the terrorists burst in ?"
What are you talking about? How would you know what happened inside the planes or the cockpits of the airliners involved? You're only parroting what you've been sold.
"Logic man logic."
Yes, something I use all the time in my career. Something you clearly don't know how to use.
"Put yourself in the mindset of a pilot, you're at the controls doing a job you're not thinking about self defence for a second you're thinking about flying safely looking out for other aircraft as you do so. Their eyes are on the sky not on the door waiting for intruders to burst in at any second."
And? What does that have to do with 9/11? Speculation is not fact, it's just speculation, logic man logic.
"Now watch this from 8 minutes and 06 seconds to 10 minutes 26 seconds a novice pilot with no prior training flies and lands a plane with no previous training. Think how easy would it be to fly airliners in perfect Visual Flight Rules conditions, to crash them precisely into the Twin Towers & into the Pentagon. VERY EASY."
See above, the example has nothing to do with a commercial airliner or 9/11 or flying into buildings with no ground control or any other help. Whether you're really a pilot or not, you've been contradicted by opinions from REAL pilots as you can read for yourself in the link I provided. Which I'm sure you didn't bother with.
You keep introducing irrelevant material to try to pretend you're intelligent and it really isn't working. Your examples, speculations and what really happened on 9/11 are totally unrelated. I told you time and again I'm not interested in theories, speculations or other things that might remotely resemble 9/11 events, I'm only interested in what really did happen, the TRUTH, not lies.
"Oh and this is me (on the left) :"
If you say so. Somehow I'm not impressed.
|
|