[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon [Some New Stuff in Here]
Source: The Ugly Truth
URL Source: http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2 ... t-77-did-not-hit-the-pentagon/
Published: Sep 1, 2011
Author: N/A
Post Date: 2011-09-01 10:15:18 by Eric Stratton
Keywords: None
Views: 2165
Comments: 135

Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon

Posted: August 31, 2011 by crescentandcross in Uncategorized

The official government and media conspiracy theory says that American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked by 5 fanatical Islamic terrorists on 9/11, and flown into the Pentagon, killing all 64 people on board along with 125 people in the Pentagon. From Wikipedia:

American Airlines Flight 77 was American Airlines' morning, daily scheduled transcontinental flight, from Washington Dulles International Airport, in Dulles, Virginia to Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California. On September 11, 2001, the aircraft flying this route—a Boeing 757-223—was hijacked by five al-Qaeda terrorists and deliberately crashed into the Pentagon, as part of the September 11 attacks.

Less than 35 minutes into the flight, the hijackers stormed the cockpit and forced the passengers to the rear of the aircraft. Hani Hanjour, one of the hijackers who was trained as a pilot, assumed control of the flight. Unknown to the hijackers, passengers aboard were able to make telephone calls to loved ones and relay information on the hijacking.

The aircraft crashed into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37 EDT. All 64 people on board the aircraft, including the hijackers, were killed, as were 125 people in the building. Dozens of people witnessed the crash and news sources began reporting on the incident within minutes. The impact severely damaged an area of the Pentagon and ignited a large fire. A portion of the Pentagon collapsed; firefighters spent days trying to fully extinguish the blaze. The damaged sections of the Pentagon were rebuilt in 2002, with occupants moving back into the completed areas on August 15, 2002.

The 184 victims of the attack are memorialized in the Pentagon Memorial adjacent to the Pentagon. The 1.93-acre (7,800 m2) park contains a bench for each of the victims, arranged according to their year of birth, ranging from 1930 (aged 71) to 1998 (aged 3).

Upon further investigation, there is no evidence to support any of these claims. For starters, let's have a listen to what CNN Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre had to say about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11:

From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.

After the U.S. Justice Department released the rather pathetic photos supposedly showing Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, Jamie McIntrye had a change of heart:
McIntrye's rather Orwellian about face should not surprise anyone. 9/11 was a hectic day, and not everyone had their script in front of them, including McIntyre. After all, it's been common knowledge for years

now that the CIA has completely infiltrated the major corporate-owned media in this country, and that Pentagon psychological warfare specialists have conducted major operations via the corporate-owned media, including operations directed at the American public. Former CIA director William Colby has been quoted as saying, "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." Below, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, a major leftist limited hangout/disinformation outlet which refuses to address the overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job, interviews Col. Sam Gardiner and Peter Hart, who have exposed the Pentagon's successful propaganda efforts in recent years using the major media of this country.

Criminal elements of the media clearly were and remain involved in the 9/11 deception and cover up.
In Enver Masud's "Pentagon Transcripts, Official Records Belie 56;The 9/11 Commission Report'," we learn:

I live less than a mile from the Pentagon, and began examining this issue in early 2002. The first question I asked when I looked at the Pentagon shortly after that tragic day in 2001 was, “where’s the plane?”

I began to suspect the official account of 9/11 when I learned that the U.S. war on Afghanistan was apparently planned prior to September 11, and possibly after U.S. negotiations with the Taliban for a pipeline broke down.

According to the BBC (September 18, 2001), Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. [...]

Writing in “9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” Kwiatowski noted, “a strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ‘missile’.”

Pentagon employee April Gallop, whose “desk was roughly 40 feet from the point where the plane allegedly hit the outside wall” stated in a sworn complaint (before the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York):

“As she sat down to work there was an explosion, then another; walls collapsed and the ceiling fell in. Hit in the head, she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.”

Barbara Honegger, military affairs journalist, reported in her personal capacity that a pilot sent by Gen Larry Arnold (NORAD) “reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.” She added, “Multiple standard-issue, battery-operated wall clocks . . . stopped between 9:31 and 9:32-1/2 on September 11.” [...]

Masud emphasizes the importance of the September 12th and September 15th, 2001 Pentagon news briefings, and what they revealed:

At the September 12, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Assistant Secretary of Defense, Victoria Clarke, Ed Plaugher (fire chief of Arlington County), and others, “American Airlines”, “Flight 7783;, “Boeing 75783; were not even mentioned.

How significant is this?

With the world’s news media assembled at the Pentagon on the day after the alleged attack on the Pentagon by Arab hijackers flying American Airlines Flight 77 — a Boeing 757 — “American Airlines”, “Flight 7783;, “Boeing 75783; were not considered important enough to mention at the Pentagon News Briefing the day after the alleged attack!

Fire chief Ed Plaugher was asked by a reporter, “Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?” Plaugherresponded, “there are some small pieces of aircraft … there’s no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.”

When asked, “Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel”, Plaugher responded “You know, I’d rather not comment on that.” [...]

At the September 15, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, and others, it was apparent that there were lingering doubts about what had struck the Pentagon on September 11.

When Mr. Evey said, “the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C Ring”, a reporter asked, “One thing that’s confusing — if it came in the way you described, at an angle, why then are not the wings outside? I mean, the wings would have shorn off. The tail would have shorn off. And yet there’s apparently no evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring.” Evey replied, “Actually, there’s considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring. It’s just not very visible.”

Apparently, no one asked how “the nose of the aircraft” (a relatively weak component of the aircraft) remained sufficiently intact to penetrate the C Ring — the E Ring is the outermost ring.

Dr. James Fetzer has explained in detail the fact that a Boeing 757, even piloted by an experienced and well-trained pilot (which was not the case with Hani Hanjour, the alleged Arab hijacker that flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon), could not possibly perform the feats described by the official government conspiracy theory:

The probability that a real Boeing 757 could have hit the Pentagon and not left debris from its wings and tail or even its engines-not to mention bodies, seats, and luggage-is zero. The probability that the alleged trajectory could have been flown in violation of the laws of aerodynamics is even less than zero-since violations of these laws is not physically possible. The probability that the trajectory, if it were possible, could have left a smooth, green, unblemished lawn is zero. The probability that debris would have been planted or that smoke would have been simulated, had this event involved the crash of a real Boeing 757, is likewise extremely low. That all of these things would have occurred if the alleged impact were contrived, however, is very high. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any reasonable alternative. [...]

The conclusion that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon appears to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's been conclusively proven that in-flight phone calls were impossible in 2001. Why did Ted make up this story? Or, who told him to tell these lies? Where is Barbara now? Is it apparent to you by now that the media is a major part of the crime gang that pulled off 9/11? Are you aware that Zionist Jews with a particular agenda own most of the major corporate media and entertainment productions in this
country?

Are those incapable of contemplating the fact that the "hijackings", planes, videos, and many of the victims
on 9/11 were a major fraud, just like the rest of the official government conspiracy theory? It seems rather obvious to me that this is indeed the case.

We still don't know exactly what happened on 9/11, so it would be wise to keep an open mind about everything.

Click for Full Text!


Poster Comment:

I haven't seen a few of these data points. (1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 98.

#1. To: Eric Stratton (#0)

I have an unfair advantage. One of my co-workers is married to a Navy officer who was in the Pentagon Navy Annex, about a half mile west and uphill from the Pentagon. At the time of the crash he was in a meeting in a room with a window facing the Pentagon. They heard the sound of a plane coming so low that they thought for a moment it would and on them. They rushed to the window and saw the jetliner aim straight for the center of the nearest side of the Pentagon. It was a passenger jetliner and apparently the pilot had used the thrusters for maximum impact.

The wings of the jet lopped off the tops of some street lamps as it approached the Pentagon, and just before it made impact one of the wingtips gauged a line in the lawn. The Pentagon is just about a quarter-mile north of a major Interstate highway junction, so there were plenty of drivers on those highways that saw the crash, and the Washington Post had no problem finding a dozen or so.

The landing gear of the plane - the most solid single part - was thrown all the way through the Pentagon into the center courtyard.

Shoonra  posted on  2011-09-01   10:46:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Shoonra (#1)

The wings of the jet lopped off the tops of some street lamps as it approached the Pentagon, and just before it made impact one of the wingtips gauged a line in the lawn.

Well your "co-worker" or their spouse is lying, since there WAS no "gash" in the lawn, and IF the "plane" HAD scraped the lawn with a wingtip it would have;

A) Tumbled to shreds before striking the Pentagon.
B) Exploded on the lawn.
C) Torn the wing off, since any sort of impact with the ground at 500+ mph would have done so.

There was NO gash, NO explosion on the lawn, and the aircraft sailed LEVEL into the Pentagon, where it reportedly penetrated several rings AT GROUND LEVEL.

BTW, did you know that as large aircraft such as commercial airliners approach the ground at high speed, they have a tendency to CLIMB? When a plane ACCELERATES while approaching the ground, it can not help but climb UNLESS the nose is pointed down, which it wasn't otherwise it would have hit at a downward angle and left a crater in the ground at the Pentagon wall and would NOT have penetrated into it.

That's besides the fact the "pilot" couldn't even fly a single engine Cessna, never mind a large multi-engine jet aircraft.

FormerLurker  posted on  2011-09-01   11:06:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: FormerLurker, shoonra (#3)

& the purported pilot hani honjour was not even competent to fly a 2 seater much less a 757. That is a major flaw in the govt's pentagon story.

Artisan  posted on  2011-09-01   11:36:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Artisan, FormerLurker, shoonra (#12)

& the purported pilot hani honjour was not even competent to fly a 2 seater much less a 757. That is a major flaw in the govt's pentagon story.

"...and this is the part which is confounding me ... how do you as the terrorist have the level of sophistication to take over the controls of a sophisticated airliner jet plane to be able to fly accurately into targets like hitting dead center into the Pentagon which is a low building?"

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2011-09-01   11:39:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: TwentyTwelve, Artisan, FormerLurker, shoonra (#14)

& the purported pilot hani honjour was not even competent to fly a 2 seater much less a 757. That is a major flaw in the govt's pentagon story.

"...and this is the part which is confounding me ... how do you as the terrorist have the level of sophistication to take over the controls of a sophisticated airliner jet plane to be able to fly accurately into targets like hitting dead center into the Pentagon which is a low building?"

Not to mention that the plane, on its alleged approach path, came at the Pentagram from the opposite side of the wall that was demolished, did a 270 degree turn while doing a rapid descent from 7,000 feet, then leveled off at tree top height, dropping to a level flight with the engine cowlings inches off the ground, while having to use heavy flap control to hold the aircraft down, and then crash into the side of a 70 foot high wall, while doing no damage to the grass. Oh, and the pilot had NEVER flown a jet aircraft of any kind at any time and was described by his flight instructors as incompetent.

What doesn't fit and why?

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-09-01   12:37:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Original_Intent, TwentyTwelve, Artisan, shoonra (#25)

dropping to a level flight with the engine cowlings inches off the ground, while having to use heavy flap control to hold the aircraft down, and then crash into the side of a 70 foot high wall

Actually, flaps are used to increase lift allowing an aircraft to slow down sufficiently yet maintain a gradual descent for a safe landing, or while taking off in order to get off the ground at regular take off speed.

An aircraft flying at cruising speed (500 mph) would not benefit from flaps if it wanted to descend, applying flaps would just cause it to climb like a rocket at that speed, and in so doing would tear the flaps right off.

There are only two ways for an aircraft to descend, and that is to either point the nose down, or decrease speed dramatically (from 500 mph to approx 150 mph), yet THIS aircraft accelerated WHILE losing altitude, meaning it was DEFINITELY NOT a 757. It had to have been a cruise missle of some type.

FormerLurker  posted on  2011-09-01   12:55:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: FormerLurker (#31) (Edited)

There are only two ways for an aircraft to descend, and that is to either point the nose down, or decrease speed dramatically (from 500 mph to approx 150 mph), yet THIS aircraft accelerated WHILE losing altitude, meaning it was DEFINITELY NOT a 757.

"attitude" is the thing, and "attitude", in aviation, means where the nose is pointed in relationship to the horizon.

if you point the nose down without dirtying up and reducing power, you accelerate.

if you reduce power and hold the nose up, you stall, spin, crash, burn and die.

aircraft are aircraft, they all obey the same laws of physics, whether they're cruise missiles or 757s, and all aircraft will accelerate while losing altitude if they dont dirty up and reduce power.

lead.and.lag  posted on  2011-09-01   13:09:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: lead.and.lag (#34)

aircraft are aircraft, they all obey the same laws of physics, whether they're cruise missiles or 757s, and all aircraft will accelerate while losing altitude if they dont dirty up and reduce power.

But an aircraft will NOT descend unless the nose points down, OR when power is decreased, slowing the aircraft down thus reducing lift.

If the nose were pointed down, the aircraft would have struck at a downwards angle and either flipped over and crashed backwards into the Pentagon wall, or would have dug a crater into the ground and not have penetrated the wall. Perhaps a combination of both would have occured.

HOWEVER, that is NOT what happened, thus it was NOT a large winged jet aircraft that hit the Pentagon, ie. NOT Flight 77.

A MISSILE on the other hand does NOT rely on wings to achieve lift, it uses THRUST and the lift created by the fuselage itself to maintain altitude, descend, or climb. Short wing-like STABALIZERS or FINS can STEER the missile in the desired direction, but they do not provide lift as wings do on regular aircraft.

CRUISE MISSLES are a hybrid of both aircraft and missile, and depending on the design, can achieve the flight characteristics of both.

FormerLurker  posted on  2011-09-01   13:21:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: FormerLurker (#36) (Edited)

A MISSILE on the other hand does NOT rely on wings to achieve lift, it uses THRUST and the lift created by the fuselage itself to maintain altitude, descend, or climb. Short wing-like STABALIZERS or FINS can STEER the missile in the desired direction, but they do not provide lift as wings do on regular aircraft.

okay, i see your point.

my point is this... you say it could not have been a 757 because of ground effect.

there's lots of reasons, listed on this thread, that cast serious doubt on the official 757 conspiracy theory, but your ground effect argument is not one of them.

lead.and.lag  posted on  2011-09-01   13:34:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: lead.and.lag (#42)

my point is this... you say it could not have been a 757 because of ground effect.

there's lots of reasons, listed on this thread, that cast serious doubt on the official 757 conspiracy theory, but your ground effect argument is not one of them.

The Laws of Physics and Aerodynamics certainly DO pertain to whether or not a 757 hit the Pentagon. MY point it, it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a 757 to have "flown" as it did just prior to impact.

Not only GROUND EFFECT (increased lift as an aircraft approaches the ground) came into play, but the simple fact is that an airplane will NOT descend UNLESS the nose was pointed down (which it wasn't), OR unless power and speed is reduced, decreasing lift (instead its engines were gunned causing it to accelerate).

Thus, Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon.

Whether you find it relevant or not, is irrelevant.

FormerLurker  posted on  2011-09-01   13:53:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: FormerLurker (#48) (Edited)

is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a 757 to have "flown" as it did just prior to impact.

i'd bet that an experienced 757 pilot could hit the same exact spot on the pentagon, without scraping wingtips, engine cowlings, or anything else.

too bad the supposed pilots of that 757 couldnt even fly cessnas.

too bad that the tail, which was 50 or 60 feet above the ground, was sucked into that little hole without a trace.

it's useless arguing over, because i doubt if any 757 pilot is gonna demonstrate his skill by flying into a building.

i have to say, before i'd be willing to try it, that i'd need a few hours of practice --in type-- flying at extremely low altitudes... but i have no doubt that it could be done.

it's not as if there is no such thing as radar altimeters.

lead.and.lag  posted on  2011-09-01   14:00:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: lead.and.lag (#50)

i'd bet that an experienced 757 pilot could hit the same exact spot on the pentagon, without scraping wingtips, engine cowlings, or anything else.

I'd bet that NO ONE could pull off the PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. It wouldn't be impossible if speed were reduced and an actual almost landing was attempted, but that is not what happened, and the nose would not, COULD NOT, have been level for such an attempt.

How does an aircraft descend from treetop level (in a matter of a fraction of a second I might add) at 500+ mph while accelerating with the nose level?

FormerLurker  posted on  2011-09-01   14:53:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: FormerLurker (#52)

How does an aircraft descend from treetop level (in a matter of a fraction of a second I might add) at 500+ mph while accelerating with the nose level?

you point the son-of-bitch where you want to go, and it goes there... that's how it works.

how much flight time do you have?

lead.and.lag  posted on  2011-09-01   14:59:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: lead.and.lag, FormerLurker (#54)

you point the son-of-bitch where you want to go, and it goes there... that's how it works.

how much flight time do you have?

Kids think that when you pull the trigger on a cap gun all the Injuns are supposed to fall down. Similarly, in kid-think, a pilot can do anything with a plane. He just points its nose where he wants it to go.

In this case the pilot, if he was indeed flying a 757, would have had a hell of a time controlling such a craft in these circumstances, not only because he was doing near acrobatic maneuvers but also because he was flying nearly 200 miles an hours faster than the aircraft was designed to do at sea level.

As I remember, I've seen heard it reliably cited on some of these threads that a 757 cannot even achieve 500 mph under its own power in any kind of controlled flight at that altitude.

Of course some folks believe aircraft can to well nigh anything. These folks have a lot of flight time themselves because they are bird brains.

randge  posted on  2011-09-01   16:00:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: randge (#70) (Edited)

In this case the pilot, if he was indeed flying a 757, would have had a hell of a time controlling such a craft in these circumstances

the biggest problem, here, is that it's irrelevant.

the second biggest problem is, nobody seems to know what they're talking about.

the relevant thing is this: the official story is bullshit.

lead.and.lag  posted on  2011-09-01   16:04:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: lead.and.lag (#71)

Another relevant thing is, one shouldn't mix alcohol with flaming and shilling - particularly when you are trying to maintain a certain identity. It takes concentration to stay in character.

randge  posted on  2011-09-01   16:17:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: randge (#73) (Edited)

Another relevant thing is, one shouldn't mix alcohol with flaming and shilling -

well, i have a problem with being accused of flaming and shilling.

first of all, i flame people who believe in chemtrails, because they have no proof of the existence of chemtrails, or chemtrail support apparatus, or chemtrail workers... and even our lord prophet, the almighty alex jones, seems to have abandoned his chemtrail project.

if i'm shilling, i have no idea who i'm shilling for, other than what seems, to me, to be the truth... and i got to admit, my version of the truth doesnt seem to pay so well.

meanwhile, we've successfully derailed the thread from a discussion of a bullshit offical conspiracy theory to a discussiom of me.

that's a really good deal, isnt it?

lead.and.lag  posted on  2011-09-01   16:23:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: lead.and.lag, range (#75)

first of all, i flame people who believe in chemtrails

You're the one that brought the subject up bud, and are using that as an excuse to ridicule what I have to say, even though I never spoke with YOU on the topic.

But if you wish to drag the conversation towards that topic, let's just say that there's ample evidence that chemtrails DO in fact exist.

Chemtrails Chemtrails

FormerLurker  posted on  2011-09-01   17:00:02 ET  (1 image) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: FormerLurker (#80) (Edited)

You're the one that brought the subject up bud

i think it's good thing if you steer the thread off onto a completely irrelevant direction.

the more iganorance, the more confusion, the more likely that people who know what they want will get what they want.

i got to say that you're the idiot sho supposedly believes in chemtrails, so you're an outcast from the getgo.

the thing that is so pathetic is ron paul, who is so desperate for media outlets that he panders to the chemtrail/abiotoic oil guru, alex jones.

although appaently, in a bid for respectability, alex jones has abanodoned chemtrails and abiotic oil, much to the consternation of his braindead worshippers.

lead.and.lag  posted on  2011-09-01   17:02:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: lead.and.lag (#81)

i think it's good thing if you steer the thread off onto a completely irrelevant direction.

That's it, do the deed then blame your victim. You are a piece of work, whoever you are.

FormerLurker  posted on  2011-09-01   17:12:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: FormerLurker (#84)

That's it, do the deed then blame your victim. You are a piece of work, whoever you are.

nope, i'm just citing your record.

not so pretty good.

meanwhile, your argument is irrelevant, seeing as how it's obvious to anyone with a brain that a 757 didnt fly into the pentagon.

lead.and.lag  posted on  2011-09-01   17:16:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: lead.and.lag (#86)

nope, i'm just citing your record.

not so pretty good.

meanwhile, your argument is irrelevant,

It is YOU who is irrelevant here. You have nothing to add really, you're just trying to tear me down so that it becomes less obvious to casual readers that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a 757 to perform as the aircraft did which impacted the Pentagon, no matter WHO was flying it.

And if you are who I think you are, you have a bit of nerve to say MY record here is "not so pretty good".

So what are you, an Internet stalker who likes to hound certain individuals he selects at random, or is it more personal than that?

C'mon brave man, tell us your last handle here on this forum.

FormerLurker  posted on  2011-09-01   17:21:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: FormerLurker (#89) (Edited)

you dont know if it's impossible for a 757 to hit the pentagon, because nobody's ever tried it.

you have a record of being an idiot.

what are we supposed to think? ...that you've, all of a sudden grown a brain?

is your supposed expertise in 757 aeorodynaics supposed to give you some boost in status, even though 757 aerodynamics are compeletely irrelevant when it comes to the pentagon, seeing as how it was most likely a missile that hit the pentagon?

lead.and.lag  posted on  2011-09-01   17:26:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: lead.and.lag (#91) (Edited)

you dont know if it's impossible for a 757 to hit the pentagon, because nobody's ever tried it.

So since I've never tried to fly by jumping off a tall building and flapping my arms, I don't KNOW if I'll crash into the ground or not, eh? Maybe YOU don't know what would happen, but I'd take a wild guess and say MOST people would.

you have a record of being an idiot.

Based on what asshole? Your word? You've been here for two weeks and you think you know people's "record" here? Screw off.

what are we supposed to think? ...that you've, all of a sudden grown a brain?

Well if you're buckeroo, we all know that you never had one to begin with. If you're not, you're probably his inbred cousin or something.

is your supposed expertise in 757 aeorodynaics supposed to give you some boost in status, even though 757 aerodynamics are compeletely irrelevant when it comes to the pentagon, seeing as how it was most likely a missile that hit the pentagon?

How can you say it was a missile when you still cling to the idea it is POSSIBLE for a 757 to have flown into the building and done the damage that was observed? I don't claim any special expertise on any specific aircraft, I simply repeat KNOWN SCIENTIFIC FACTS which eliminate pretty much ANY large airliner as the aircraft which flew into the Pentagon. That said, it proves that Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon that day, so the government is LYING, and many people have died as a result of that lie.

You are not here to discuss, you are here to stifle and disrupt, that much is obvious. That you CLAIM to be interested in the matter yet ridicule the messenger carrying the message of what did NOT occur that day, indicates you are part of problem.

FormerLurker  posted on  2011-09-01   17:38:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: FormerLurker (#97) (Edited)

How can you say it was a missile when you still cling to the idea it is POSSIBLE for a 757 to have flown into the building

i can say it's possible because it's probably possible...although nobody but the government says it's been done.

in the meantime, it's perfectly obvious that you're beating a dead horse, because the government conspiracy theory is so out of whack that your theory is rrrelevant.

lead.and.lag  posted on  2011-09-01   17:44:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 98.

#100. To: lead.and.lag (#98)

i can say it's possible because it's probably possible...although nobody but the government says it's been done.

No, it is not probable, it is HIGHLY improbable. Scientifically, it is impossible.

Show me a large airliner fly less than say 40 feet off the ground at 500 mph, then I might consider it possible. Till then, with science as my guide, I say it's not only highly improbable, it is impossible.

That's besides the fact the supposed pilot MOST LIKELY couldn't even fly into the Pentagon with a Cessna, never mind a 757.

in the meantime, it's perfectly obvious that you're beating a dead horse, and the official conspiracy theory is so out of whack that your theory is rrrelevant.

I began by simply defending my analysis, and ended up having to defend my SELF against YOU.

FormerLurker  posted on  2011-09-01 17:53:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 98.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]