|
Post by shred on Apr 11, 2013 7:17:48 GMT -5
Very interesting that picture of a damaged wall hit by a cruise missile, it looks eerily similar to the Pentagon's damaged wall before it collapsed. As to all your questions, yes those are all very good questions if it was a cruise missile. That's why I suggested one possibility that the airliner that flew toward the Pentagon may have been a decoy to make people believe it crashed into the Pentagon and may have actually been the vehicle that delivered the cruise missile then flew over the Pentagon. That's just sheer speculation of course, it's not necessarily what happened but like I said, nothing should ever be discounted, especially since there never was any criminal investigation into any aspect of the events of 9/11. All these fake investigations were set up to support the official story that came out within days of 9/11. Here are other sample questions that you'll never ask: 1. How did any airliner, missile or other object approach the most heavily defensed building in the world without being shot down or any defense mounted? From what I understand, the Pentagon has a missile defense system that detects any approaching object and fires immediately if it doesn't transmit the proper "friendly" code. It is on record that Cheney ordered a STAND DOWN. The Pentagon wasn't defended by AA Guns or Missiles. There were only a few minutes between the hijacking and the crash. First stage, wide turning circle, enough speed to keep it flying above the stall speed to prevent it going into a spin. Second stage at high speed any plane's wings go into ground effect and instead of landing it flies on a cushion of air. Four short videos posted earlier in the thread show low level high speed flight including a TAP Airbus flying very low very fast. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_in_aircraftHani Hanjour was a solo pilot holding a commercial pilot's licence. He struggled with the theory exam taking longer than normal because of his poor English. That day at the time of the attack it was perfect Visual Flight Rules conditions. In such conditions it's just a case of pointing and flying. Even the altimeter isn't needed in good VFR conditions. Because they didn't know it was newly reinforced ? Perhaps a sensor wasn't working or perhaps your claim is false? Their names and their full quotes (genuine media sources please not some idiots for 'truth' dot com site).
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 11, 2013 7:25:37 GMT -5
I've read all these posts. I declare Shred the clear winner. Cheers man appreciate it
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 11, 2013 9:24:56 GMT -5
I asked the questions but I wasn't looking for your speculations/theories as answers, I'm looking for REAL ANSWERS.
"There were only a few minutes between the hijacking and the crash."
Yeah about 42 "few minutes" according to the official story, you like to play word games. Plenty of time for any defensive response except that Cheney made sure there was none.
"Their names and their full quotes (genuine media sources please not some idiots for 'truth' dot com site)."
Oh you want "genuine [lamestream] media sources", definitely not truth, ok I can understand that coming from you. Sorry but the lamestream media does not publish very much that might contradict the official fairy tale. Isn't that convenient for you?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2013 9:27:56 GMT -5
I've read all these posts. I declare Shred the clear winner. I didn't know it was a contest but if it is I fully agree. He wins top prize for being the best at parroting the official fairy tale. I proudly lost that one hands down. But you didn't have to read any of these posts, just read the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST reports, the first one and the final one that contradicts the first one. Just memorize these and you too can become a skilled parrot. Be careful not to get confused by NIST's contradictions, they can trip up the most skilled parrots. Also don't forget to include all the publicly admitted lies from the 9/11 Commission Report or else you'll lose valuable points. You didn't know it was a contest? You were attacking him from every angle you could think of, and you didn't think that was a competition? You really didn't understand that you were engaged in a debate? He's the winner of the debate between you and him. You've thrown theory after theory after theory at him, and he's refuted every single one of them with irrefutable facts. I read all the posts between you two with an open mind. Shred clearly has the facts on his side.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 11, 2013 9:54:42 GMT -5
I didn't know it was a contest but if it is I fully agree. He wins top prize for being the best at parroting the official fairy tale. I proudly lost that one hands down. But you didn't have to read any of these posts, just read the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST reports, the first one and the final one that contradicts the first one. Just memorize these and you too can become a skilled parrot. Be careful not to get confused by NIST's contradictions, they can trip up the most skilled parrots. Also don't forget to include all the publicly admitted lies from the 9/11 Commission Report or else you'll lose valuable points. You didn't know it was a contest? You were attacking him from every angle you could think of, and you didn't think that was a competition? You really didn't understand that you were engaged in a debate? He's the winner of the debate between you and him. You've thrown theory after theory after theory at him, and he's refuted every single one of them with irrefutable facts. I read all the posts between you two with an open mind. Shred clearly has the facts on his side. Thanks for your opinion(s), I'll file it in my "irrelevant" folder. Shred's "facts" consist of tidbits such as: 1. The folding and disappearing wing theory. 2. All the thousands of experts who contradict the official story are fakes, so-called experts and they misquote and doctor evidence. They all profit immensely from their fakery. 3. The 9/11 story as told by government is 100% accurate including all the admitted lies. 4. Flying commercial airliners is a "piece of cake", anyone can do it with no help. 5. He has ALL the answers, there is not one single question anyone needs to ask anyone else about 9/11, just ask him, he was there. He spoke to everyone and everyone agrees with him. They even told him I'm wrong and I should never ask any questions about 9/11 that don't make any sense to me. There's plenty more but you can take pride in that you feel he "won", whatever that means. "Contest" over and done. You don't mind if I continue to post stuff about 9/11 do you? If you do, I suggest you just ignore my posts on this subject as they may bother you. This "contest loser" has thousands of questions that need answers and thousands of issues with the official fairy tale.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 11, 2013 10:13:49 GMT -5
I asked the questions but I wasn't looking for your speculations/theories as answers, I'm looking for REAL ANSWERS. "There were only a few minutes between the hijacking and the crash."Yeah about 42 "few minutes" according to the official story, you like to play word games. Plenty of time for any defensive response except that Cheney made sure there was none. At 08:54am the plane began to deviate from its normal, assigned flight path and turned south. The hijackers set the flight's autopilot heading for Washington, D.C. By 08:56am, the flight was turned around, and the transponder had been disabled. By 09:37am the plane had crashed into the Pentagon. In comparison it took them an hour and twenty minutes (9:33 EDT to 9:52 CDT – see NTSB report on the crash) to intercept Payne Stewarts stricken Learjet back in 1999 and that had it's transponder broadcasting the whole time so they could find it! This is a real time flight tracker which gets it's data from air traffic controllers from around the world. www.flightradar24.comHave a look and see how busy airspace really is. Imagine how difficult it is to track a plane without a transponder broadcasting it's position and altitude? Radar only gives distance information. Without transponder planes still show up on radar but operators don't know how high or how big or what type. yes If it had have happened the way you claim they'd have said so in live interviews to these media sources at the time. And there are videos to corroborate your clam I'd like to watch. I've not seen any, how can you be so sure these alleged 'witnesses' aren't just conspiracists pretending to have been there because they want to support some idiots for troof dot com site? In your opinion.Oh and regarding wings, this pic says it all about how strong wings are. This Boeing overshot a runway and broke up in a low speed crash. So imagine when flight 77's wings struck concrete Pentagon entry hole before collapse: These concrete pillars scarred by the Starboard wing were stronger than the wing so it cannot have gone through and must have been pushed back, hence the debris from a broken wing on the lawn (which I've already shown you): Wake up mate.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 11, 2013 11:38:42 GMT -5
"At 08:54am the plane ... " yada, yada
I already told you I'm looking for REAL ANSWERS, not verbatim recitations of the official narrative or your opinions and theories. In this case, Cheney's DOCUMENTED STAND DOWN ORDER (the one you conveniently failed to address), speaks volumes for me. It tells me exactly why the "plane" was allowed to fly for over 40 minutes without it being intercepted. It (and other FACTS) also tells me that he and others in the highest positions deliberately STOOD DOWN on 9/11.
As for your "truth", you said you're only interested in "truth" from lamestream media sources. I don't have any "truth" for you from those sources because these are all mostly propaganda outlets, not truth as most intelligent people perceive truth.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2013 12:07:38 GMT -5
You didn't know it was a contest? You were attacking him from every angle you could think of, and you didn't think that was a competition? You really didn't understand that you were engaged in a debate? He's the winner of the debate between you and him. You've thrown theory after theory after theory at him, and he's refuted every single one of them with irrefutable facts. I read all the posts between you two with an open mind. Shred clearly has the facts on his side. Thanks for your opinion(s), I'll file it in my "irrelevant" folder. Shred's "facts" consist of tidbits such as: 1. The folding and disappearing wing theory. 2. All the thousands of experts who contradict the official story are fakes, so-called experts and they misquote and doctor evidence. They all profit immensely from their fakery. 3. The 9/11 story as told by government is 100% accurate including all the admitted lies. 4. Flying commercial airliners is a "piece of cake", anyone can do it with no help. 5. He has ALL the answers, there is not one single question anyone needs to ask anyone else about 9/11, just ask him, he was there. He spoke to everyone and everyone agrees with him. They even told him I'm wrong and I should never ask any questions about 9/11 that don't make any sense to me. There's plenty more but you can take pride in that you feel he "won", whatever that means. "Contest" over and done. You don't mind if I continue to post stuff about 9/11 do you? If you do, I suggest you just ignore my posts on this subject as they may bother you. This "contest loser" has thousands of questions that need answers and thousands of issues with the official fairy tale. By all means, continue! Although you've yet to accept it, all your questions on this thread have been answered, and answered by a pilot no less. If it makes you feel better, I too had many many questions about the Pentagon. Namely - how could an amateur make such an incredible turn? But then I saw a re-creation of the flight and it wasn't nearly as hard as I'd thought it would be. Shred is right, the flying ability of the pilot did not have to be high in order to make the turn he made. I do not believe you'll ever accept that as truth, but that's OK. I welcome the questioning of authority!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2013 12:14:34 GMT -5
Shred said: "This is a real time flight tracker which gets it's data from air traffic controllers from around the world. www.flightradar24.com". WOW. Bob, you REALLY need to visit that site. Move the map over to the Washington, D.C./New York City area, and tell me how many plane icons you see.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 11, 2013 13:25:25 GMT -5
Bob wake up.
There was no stand down order given to the USAF. It's a conspiracy lie.
Fact: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked—the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.
Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
Pre 9/11 all air defence radar systems were based on Hugh Dowding's original Chain Home system which looked outwards for foreign threats and followed much the same procedures as the RAF in 1940. Sloppy I realise but that's the way air defence procedures worked. Until that day there had not been an air attack on any part of the United States since 1941 when Pearl Harbour was attacked. NORAD were complacent. Their command didn't consider the kamikaze hijacking of an airliner, they should have after the hijacking of Air France 8969 in 1994 but they didn't.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 11, 2013 15:15:01 GMT -5
"By all means, continue!"
Thanks I'm grateful for your permission, I didn't know I needed it.
"Although you've yet to accept it, all your questions on this thread have been answered, and answered by a pilot no less."
They've been answered for you but I'm not you. You don't speak for me last I checked.
"If it makes you feel better, I too had many many questions about the Pentagon. Namely - how could an amateur make such an incredible turn? But then I saw a re-creation of the flight and it wasn't nearly as hard as I'd thought it would be. Shred is right, the flying ability of the pilot did not have to be high in order to make the turn he made."
I could care less how you feel, I don't know you. But apparently in your world Shred is the ultimate authority, a real "winner". If you believe it's a "piece of cake", you ought to give it a shot. I'll take the opinions of REAL PILOTS as much closer to reality. I already posted links to their opinions and they ALL contradict Shred, your "winner".
"I do not believe you'll ever accept that as truth, but that's OK."
His "truth" or yours? You're both anonymous posters in a forum, one has to be a blithering idiot to accept his posts or yours as "truth" by itself. I certainly don't ever expect anyone to accept anything I post as truth without doing the research and using their personal judgment.
"I welcome the questioning of authority!"
Oh thanks, I'll question it regardless that you welcome it or not if you don't mind.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 11, 2013 15:32:01 GMT -5
"Bob wake up."
Do you actually believe I post in this forum while I'm asleep? Maybe it's you who posts while sleeping so you believe others do as well.
"There was no stand down order given to the USAF. It's a conspiracy lie."
I have no idea to who or what entities the STAND DOWN order was issued but it is DOCUMENTED eyewitness testimony on video that there was a STAND DOWN order given. That's a fact, not a "conspiracy lie". I gave you the link. If you choose to believe that the video is "doctored evidence", that's certainly your prerogative, your mind does seem to operate in a different world.
"Fact: ..." yada, yada
Thanks but your "facts" are always either a verbatim recitation of the official narrative or they're just your theories and opinions. And I have quite a few samples of those. I've heard that outrageous nonsense about the NORAD "doughnut". It's a $multi-trillion system that doesn't work in the US, sure I understand, well at least you do, that's all that counts for you.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 11, 2013 17:02:05 GMT -5
No, it's not a documented eyewitness testimony it's bull Bob. There was NO stand down order that is a documented eyewitness (Major Douglas Martin, Staff Sergeant Sean McEntee) fact. Everyone who was at NORAD that day knows that there was no stand down order. If you don't believe me write to NORAD. At 9.09am NEADS contacted Langley Airbase and asked for fighters to be placed at battle stations, at 9.30am two Langley F16's took off in search of flight 11 unaware that it had already crashed. They did not know that flight 77 was also missing because of the lack of commonality between air traffic controllers and air defence radar controllers. At 9.32am controllers at Washington Dulles International Airport spotted an inbound plane and relayed the information to the Secret Service, nobody notified NEADS and the fighters headed east over the Atlantic Ocean in part because of a generic flight plan designed to get fighters at Langley airborne and out of the crowded local airspace as quickly as possible to prevent collisions. Once controllers at Boston Center realised that an unidentified aircraft was closing in on Washington the F16's were ordered to return to the D.C. area at top speed, they were authorised to fly at supersonic speed. The fighters were still 150 miles east of the capital when Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9.37am. All air defence radar systems prior to 9/11 were based upon Hugh Dowding's Chain Home method which only looked outwards. No developed nation had before been subjected to air attack by planes which took off in their own country. This is how Chain Home protected Britain in WW2: Radar Stations had phones to sector stations, then in map rooms flights of Hurricanes and Spitfires would be vectored towards incoming German aircraft. No enemy aircraft were going to take off from behind the radar screens, so there was no thought as to placing radar which would look the other way. Everyone who copied Dowding's system followed the same logic including your NORAD. Now back in the 40's 50's 60's and even in the 1970's and 1980's and 1990's there was no need to redesign the system as the perceived enemy was the USSR... TU95's and MIG 29's and SU27's weren't going to take off and attack from US Airfields, there was no perceived threat from domestic flights. Airliners were a soft target. The terrorists exploited this.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 11, 2013 19:05:10 GMT -5
"No, it's not a documented eyewitness testimony it's bull Bob. There was NO stand down order that is a documented eyewitness (Major Douglas Martin, Staff Sergeant Sean McEntee) fact."
Really, I wasn't trying to convince you of anything that's OBVIOUS to any intelligent person, it's not my job. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified in front of the 9/11 Commission that there was an order given by Cheney, it's on video for anyone to see, but he was probably lying or the video must have been "doctored" by those pesky "truthers", right? And there absolutely was no stand down of any kind on 9/11. The "terrorists" were able to neutralize the most sophisticated $multi-trillion intelligence/defense system on the planet and several dozen agencies for well over an hour. All under the control of some guy in a cave in Afghanistan who was dying from kidney failure, or was it that "mastermind" who was tortured mercilessly for years? I'm kind of confused on that, they keep changing the story depending on who they're focusing on.
"Everyone who was at NORAD that day knows that there was no stand down order."
Ah, here we go again, Shred speaks to everyone at NORAD, the Pentagon and all the experts he provided a link to. And of course, they tell him everything because he's such a special person. If you actually read my post, you would have noted that I said I had no idea who or what entity Cheney gave the order to. The 9/11 Commission conveniently failed to follow up and ask that question, not to mention they conveniently failed to mention Mineta's testimony in the 9/11 Commission Report, along with about a couple of thousand other things they failed to do. Those kinds of things sort of get in the way of the official fairy tale.
"If you don't believe me write to NORAD."
Of course, I'm sure if I write to NORAD they will be absolutely cooperative and spill their guts. You would be really funny if you weren't so pathetic.
The rest of your post is the same tired parroting, theories, opinions and irrelevant nonsense of yours that is absolutely worthless to me if you think you're trying to convince me. It doesn't apply to the reality of what really happened on 9/11 or answer any real questions. And if you are trying to convince me of something other than the kind of person you are, I'm sure you're semi-intelligent enough to have figured out by now that it's not working. But at least someone believes you're a "winner" at something so that should help.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 12, 2013 4:03:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 12, 2013 7:37:46 GMT -5
"Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta grounded 4,546 civilian and commercial flights. He did not stand down USAF fighters, he had no authority over the USAF, that's the Secretary of State for Defence and NORAD's job, his job is to manage civil and commercial aviation and liase with the Federal Aviation Administration."
I'm sure you saw the video and you're deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Even if you didn't see the video, I'm sure you can read English and read my post when I said Mineta testified that Cheney issued the stand down order. No one said anything about Mineta issuing stand down orders. Why do you do that? Do you think it helps if you make up things?
"Nice try Bob but as usual you've not checked the facts."
Says the fabricator. The FACTS about the STAND DOWN ORDER are in the video Einstein not in the Washington Post. This part:
[[[There is a plane 80 miles out," he said. "There is a fighter in the area. Should we engage?"
"Yes," Cheney replied without hesitation.
Around the vice president, Rice, deputy White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, tensed as the military aide repeated the question, this time with even more urgency. The plane was now 60 miles out. "Should we engage?" Cheney was asked.
"Yes," he replied again.]]]
is made up bulls**t, it's not in the video.
I don't "try" anything, you're the one who constantly makes up things and tries to confuse issues. Where's the link from anyone else who supports one of your other gems, your fold up wing theory?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 12, 2013 8:49:48 GMT -5
The 9/11 Pentagon attack is full of confusion, even from those who don't support the official narrative. Much less confusion exists about the WTC attacks from people who don't agree with the official narrative. Of course one would always expect conflicting opinions from something like that which was NEVER investigated. What is unanimous consensus from those who don't support the official narrative is that an independent forensic criminal investigation into the events surrounding and on 9/11 is absolutely critical. There are 3 peer reviewed papers that have been written and posted at the Journal of 9/11 Studies website concerning the Pentagon: "What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth" - Dr. Frank Legge, July 2009 "Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon" - Frank Legge and Warren Stutt, January 2011 "The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact" - John D. Wyndham, December 2011 journalof911studies.com/articles.htmlThe above papers generally agree that a large airliner did crash into the Pentagon. The papers do not make any conclusions about who or how this was done. Although the authors of the above papers are experts, they are not pilots. I personally read all the above papers and for me there are too many questions/issues that leave me far from convinced that a large airliner did indeed crash into the Pentagon, but that's just me (not to mention millions of others). However, this site contains articles written by pilots that generally do NOT agree that a large plane crashed into the Pentagon: pilotsfor911truth.org/When researching 9/11, it goes without saying that it's always important to check into all sides of the issue and of course, consider the sources.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 12, 2013 13:02:24 GMT -5
Your video is a fabrication. Pilotsfor911'truth' and 'journal'of911studies are liars.
The Pentagon attack was successful because NORAD had no defence against such an attack, they had just 14 fully fuelled fighters on stand by to cover your own country, they did not share radar information with the FAA at the time, their own radar only looked out. The fighters were scrambled but went in the wrong direction. Norman Y. Mineta, the guy you quoted as a witness disproved your point about stand down, being in charge of the FAA and not NORAD or USAF his job was to ground civilian and commercial flights after the attacks against New York, not to ground fighter planes before the attacks.
The debris at the Pentagon obviously came from an American Airlines jetliner, 104 eyewitnesses to the crash saw an American Airlines Jet. The outer hole was easily big enough to have been made by a 757 (indeed it was made by a 757), parts of a 757 including the RB211-535e engines were found inside the Pentagon. You've seen the photos for God's sake. Telephone calls from the stricken plane were made to relatives of the passengers. How you can ignore the physical evidence of the wreckage I don't know? How can you ignore the eyewitnesses like Mike Walter ? How can you ignore the testimony of Allyn E. Kilsheimer ? How can you ignore the testimony of the two NORAD guys I mentioned ?
Don't be thick, Pilots For 911 troof are liars as are the fake 'Journal'of 911 studies. They wouldn't know "truth" if it raped them. It wasn't an inside job. Do something constructive with your time instead of wasting it with their wild goose chase.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 12, 2013 13:30:56 GMT -5
Your video is a fabrication. Pilotsfor911'truth' and 'journal'of911studies are liars. The Pentagon attack was successful because NORAD had no defence against such an attack, they had just 14 fully fuelled fighters on stand by to cover your own country, they did not share radar information with the FAA at the time, their own radar only looked out. The fighters were scrambled but went in the wrong direction. Norman Y. Mineta, the guy you quoted as a witness disproved your point about stand down, being in charge of the FAA and not NORAD or USAF his job was to ground civilian and commercial flights after the attacks against New York, not to ground fighter planes before the attacks. The debris at the Pentagon obviously came from an American Airlines jetliner, 104 eyewitnesses to the crash saw an American Airlines Jet. The outer hole was easily big enough to have been made by a 757 (indeed it was made by a 757), parts of a 757 including the RB211-535e engines were found inside the Pentagon. You've seen the photos for God's sake. Telephone calls from the stricken plane were made to relatives of the passengers. How you can ignore the physical evidence of the wreckage I don't know? How can you ignore the eyewitnesses like Mike Walter ? How can you ignore the testimony of Allyn E. Kilsheimer ? How can you ignore the testimony of the two NORAD guys I mentioned ? Don't be thick, Pilots For 911 troof are liars as are the fake 'Journal'of 911 studies. They wouldn't know "truth" if it raped them. Your entire post sounds like it comes from someone who can't be much older than 12. I didn't create the video of the Mineta testimony to the 9/11 Commission so it's not my video. It appears all over the web and no one but you has ever claimed it's a "fabrication". You are delusional and just a rabid supporter of the 9/11 fairy tale. You'll lie, fabricate, obfuscate, create unsubstantiated theories as you go and say just about anything, no matter how juvenile and silly it sounds to try to support the official narrative. When I ask you for supporting links to your theories, you ignore the request and try to sidetrack the issue with irrelevant nonsense. But like I said, I'm not trying to convince you of anything because you're not posting here for the purpose of discussing the subject of 9/11 intelligently, you're here for some other purpose. The reason I posted links to 3 papers from the Journal of 9/11 Studies that actually support the large plane impact into the Pentagon is to show that the site publishes both sides of the issue, not just one side. "It wasn't an inside job. Do something constructive with your time instead of wasting it with their wild goose chase."Thanks, I'll take your opinion and your advice and flush it where it belongs. At this point, unless you have something intelligent to discuss, the only time I'm wasting is discussing anything with you.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 12, 2013 14:23:26 GMT -5
I'm sorry but I'm extremely frustrated by your childish and ignorant behaviour.
This is supposed to be a debate and you provide no facts, only misquotes and lies to corroborate your position.
I've shown you evidence of the damage to the Pentagon exterior, evidence of eyewitnesses, evidence of wing parts and other aeroplane parts from an American Airlines jet bearing American Airlines livery. I've caught you out with your lie about the entry hole (your photo was of the exit hole). I've shown you undercarriage parts, engine parts, even given you the testimony of a first responder who was there and the testimonies of NORAD staff whose job it was to defend your skies that day.
Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 commission corroborates what I've been saying. They knew of the incoming flight from the FAA radar (and if you weren't so ignorant you'd work out what he's really saying instead of twisting his words to fit your 'inside job' fairy tale). They had jets in the air to shoot down Flight 77, the jets were in the wrong position 10 minutes away. They had authorisation to shoot it down. They didn't get there in time to shoot it down. They then discovered Flight 93 had been hijacked and had switched off it's transponder (so it's altitude information wasn't known) the fighters had then to go and find that aircraft amongst 4500 other aircraft in the air at the time, verify it was the right plane and then when authorised shoot it down. Before authorisation to shoot down Flight 93 could be given, it had crashed.
Nobody could blame them if they had have shot down Flight 93.
Norman Mineta gave the order to ground all commercial flights & civil flights so no more could / would be hijacked.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 12, 2013 22:33:16 GMT -5
"I'm sorry but I'm extremely frustrated by your childish and ignorant behaviour."
Really now. I feel just awful that you and I are poles apart when it comes to mental fortitude. You see, I could care less what you think or feel. In my opinion, you're quite immature and you reveal that with your posts. You feel I'm childish, and given that I'm probably twice your age or thereabouts that's quite humorous but whatever, it means nothing to me.
"This is supposed to be a debate and you provide no facts, only misquotes and lies to corroborate your position."
If you say so. My agenda is very different than yours. I'm really not sure what yours is and what motivates you to try to convince me of any of your nonsense. I started posting here about 9/11 issues in order to educate those who did not know many things that I've researched over the years. 9/11 is one of the most important recent events in history. Virtually everything that's been done by those in power since 9/11 is because of 9/11. It's critical that everyone learn the truth about that event. Despite that you claim what you were fed is 100% accurate, that's as far from reality as Santa Claus. You voluntarily stepped into these threads and in my opinion you serve as an important shill to my agenda, that you serve as the mouthpiece of the official propaganda outlet. Those who don't know much detail about the official story should know a lot more now with your help and it is important that both sides be heard. So thank you for your help.
"I've shown you ..." yada, yada
Actually, you've shown me personally nothing more than your immaturity and on occasion, some interesting things, most of these have nothing to do with the point of my posts on 9/11. One of your best posts though was the picture of that house that was hit by a missile. For me, it really added to the strong likelihood that the Pentagon exhibited a similar fate. So thanks for that. I'm still not fully convinced that that actually happened but it did add weight to that side of the spectrum.
The most important thing about the Pentagon issue (and all 9/11 issues) is that one should understand that there is so much controversy about it and that it is critical that it be properly investigated. That it never was only adds to the suspicion that it was at the very least, a deliberate STAND DOWN and at worst, an inside job.
"Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 commission corroborates what I've been saying. They knew of the incoming flight from the FAA radar"
Well actually it doesn't corroborate anything other than your second point. One can easily glean from the Mineta testimony that YES they KNEW that the plane was headed toward the Pentagon, that's obvious and Cheney had a STAND DOWN order not to shoot it down. Did Cheney know from the radar or did he know from the start? That is part of what needs to be investigated.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 13, 2013 6:49:54 GMT -5
Cheney did not have a stand down order not to shoot it down, Mineta's testimony is quite clear !
Do the orders still stand ? YES. Meaning SHOOT IT DOWN! You have a freedom of information act, why not request a full transcript of what Mineta said, why not request a full transcript of Cheney's orders?
You claim to be interested in truth, aren't you interested in putting things to the test ? Aren't you interested in getting hard evidence ?
All the ATC tapes are available through the FOI act. I'm not an American and have never been to America, but you are and it's your right as an American citizen, so write the letter.
Write to the FAA, write to NEADS, write to NORAD, write to Major Douglas Martin, if you're interested in the truth, it's your duty to ask these people your questions.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 13, 2013 9:51:17 GMT -5
OK the STAND DOWN ORDER is for the viewer to determine, not you to determine for everyone.
"You have a freedom of information act, why not request a full transcript of what Mineta said, why not request a full transcript of Cheney's orders?"
This is silly and extremely naive mentality. I don't need a transcript of what Mineta said when I heard it for myself. As to Cheney, do you actually believe that if Cheney ordered a STAND DOWN I could easily get a transcript of that? What planet do you live on?
"Write to the FAA, write to NEADS, write to NORAD, write to Major Douglas Martin, if you're interested in the truth, it's your duty to ask these people your questions."
Same nonsense. If 9/11 was an inside job, do you believe I can get access to that information? A "piece of cake"? As an example, there was an FIOA request for the details of NIST's program on the WTC7 simulation. It was summarily turned down because NIST said that its release would "jeopardize public safety". They don't even give you any intelligent reason. Often when there are FIOA requests of government data and it is released, it is heavily redacted sometimes to the point of incomprehensibility. Your childish naivete is quite astounding.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 13, 2013 12:47:04 GMT -5
You heard PART of it.
He's clearly not saying Cheney stood down the National Air Guard.
As for Pilots for truth and their claims that it's too hard to crash these airliners precisely: Flight 11 reconstructions collisions disabled:
Flight 77 reconstruction:
Flight 175 reconstruction:
Anyway have a nice day Bob, it's evening here, I'm off to the pub for some nice warm beer.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 13, 2013 16:07:35 GMT -5
"He's clearly not saying Cheney stood down the National Air Guard."
Yep he's clearly not saying Cheney stood down the National Air Guard. And?
All the "simulation" or "reconstruction" videos you posted are just that, theoretical simulations and reconstructions.
"Anyway have a nice day Bob, it's evening here"
Thanks you too.
"I'm off to the pub for some nice warm beer."
Ugh, I think most Americans like theirs ice cold.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 14, 2013 7:22:48 GMT -5
The National Air Guard was up, looking for the hijacked planes, and after the Twin Towers had been hit they had shoot down orders. But there was confusion about where the hijacked planes were, the ATC NORAD tapes reveal that they got confused and assumed Flight 11 was proceeding towards Washington and a different plane had crashed into the north tower.
The reconstructions prove that airliners can be flown that way.
Pilot's for truth's claim they wouldn't be able to accurately turn an airliner at high speed to hit a target, they didn't have to, they could easily line up and then put the speed on, any corrections to attitude they made thereafter were small, this method makes VNE less of an issue, because the plane is only going to go through VNE for a short time before collision.
Ice cold beer is ok if it's a lager beer, but ales, stouts and porters have much more flavour, and to fully appreciate these malty and hoppy flavours, it has to be warmer so one's taste-buds are not chilled, I'm not talking about hot beer, just room temperature.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 14, 2013 8:38:55 GMT -5
"The National Air Guard was up, looking for the hijacked planes, and after the Twin Towers had been hit they had shoot down orders. But there was confusion about where the hijacked planes were, the ATC NORAD tapes reveal that they got confused and assumed Flight 11 was proceeding towards Washington and a different plane had crashed into the north tower."Whatever "confusion" there was should have never been unless it was orchestrated confusion. Conveniently, there were no less than 4 war games deliberately scheduled that day. Conveniently no one in charge was around that day (see Consensus Point G): www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/Conveniently, Bush STOOD DOWN, he had more important things to do such as listen to the "My Pet Goat" story and take photos with kids, and conveniently there was a deliberate STAND DOWN ORDER from Cheney that was something else in your opinion. "The reconstructions prove that airliners can be flown that way."There are many cartoons around, none of them are true re-creations of what happened. They're all OPINIONS and THEORIES and that does NOT exclude cartoons created by those who contradict the official narrative. I tend to like REALITY, not cartoons. "Pilot's for truth's claim they wouldn't be able to accurately turn an airliner at high speed to hit a target, they didn't have to, they could easily line up and then put the speed on, any corrections to attitude they made thereafter were small, this method makes VNE less of an issue, because the plane is only going to go through VNE for a short time before collision."Thanks, I'll accept what REAL PILOTS have to say on the subject and take your opinion as to where it comes from. In my opinion the likelihood that ALL the planes were remote controlled is much higher than that they were under the control of non-pilots. But that's my opinion and it does agree with the opinions of many REAL PILOTS who have published their names along with their opinions. "Ice cold beer is ok if it's a lager beer, but ales, stouts and porters have much more flavour, and to fully appreciate these malty and hoppy flavours, it has to be warmer so one's taste-buds are not chilled, I'm not talking about hot beer, just room temperature."Your opinion, I like ALL beers ice cold, it's my opinion but in my case is 100% true.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 14, 2013 9:20:02 GMT -5
Whatever "confusion" there was should have never been Agreed. Your opinion. in your opinion. In reality there was a shoot down order. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42754-2002Jan26_3.htmlNot a cartoon, a flight simulator reconstruction. No pilot in his right mind would fly a real 757 full of people into the Pentagon to give a true re-creation. Ditto. I am a real pilot who does real takeoffs and real landings at a real airfield in Yorkshire. I do this without the luxury of engine power to get me out of trouble. I've had stall and spin training, I've had an air law exam, I've flown a powered aircraft, a T61F Venture ( G-BUJX ) I have a Glider pilot's licence. Insufficient height to get back to the airfield? Pick a field. If there's no safe landing area? Crash. I've used the largest coal fired power station in Europe for lift. I've been aerotowed by a retired airline pilot to 3000ft. I've flown with the only airworthy Avro Vulcan ( G-VLCN aka XH558 ) left in the world as it flew over Drax in the direction of my airfield. I know enough about flight to have an informed opinion. Mohammed Atta, Hani Hanjour, Ziad Jarrah and Marwan al-Shehhi were real pilots. Why would American Airlines or United Airlines take the extremely risky step of involving themselves in a conspiracy to kill their staff, their passengers and civilians on the ground ? I am a real pilot and you know my real name. You wouldn't be saying that if you'd ever tried Mrs Simpson's Thriller in Vanilla Porter, trust me, it's delicious.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 14, 2013 9:49:40 GMT -5
"Mohammed Atta, Hani Hanjour, Ziad Jarrah and Marwan al-Shehhi were real pilots."
A REAL PILOT would never try to make that claim. REAL PILOTS have posted their opinions of these NON-pilots. A piece of paper does not make anyone a real pilot whether it's authentic or created in someone's basement.
"Why would American Airlines or United Airlines take the extremely risky step of involving themselves in a conspiracy to kill their staff, their passengers and civilians on the ground ?"
That's just one of thousands of questions that requires an answer but not in the way you phrased it. There's no known evidence that any of these corporations or those who control them were involved in any conspiracy. However, nothing can or should be discounted. That's why it's critical that we have a REAL INVESTIGATION into 9/11, not one(s) designed to COVER-UP.
"I am a real pilot and you know my real name."
You're still a nobody with a name, whether real or not and one who has some sort of agenda. There are pilots and many others who are quite well known who have signed their names to their opinions that contradict the official story.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 14, 2013 10:27:30 GMT -5
All four earned a Commercial Pilot Licence from the FAA after passing the tests required to achieve the certification. The tests they took were stringent, yet they passed. Their own tutors must have suffered greatly knowing that they trained terrorists to become Kamikazes. It's still hard for me to accept that someone took over a plane full of people and murdered them all, but it happened.
Phone calls from the hijacked planes (Betty Ong's call for example) verified that they had slashed the throats of the pilots of the airliners and assaulted other aircrew with knives, some of whom were stabbed.
Pilots are human beings, some are idiots who buy into every off the shelf conspiracy theory going. John Lear is a great example of a conspiraloon. Pilots for 911'truth' may have airline pilots in their number but that doesn't mean are telling you the truth about the hijackings or the crashes.
|
|