Another look at the Doubletree video(s)!

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by tezzajw
If it's perfectly ok, by you, to state the object in the Doubletree video may have been travelling at 100 mph, then how do you reconcile an alleged impact speed of 530 mph?

I did not state that. You are a liar.

The last time I called another member a liar, I was warned and fined 500 points. That's about the last time that I bothered to argue with greer supporters in the UFO threads. What a waste of time that turned out to be...

You stated that 'it doesn't matter if the plane was going 500 mph or 100 mph, it still smashed into the building'.

You clearly entertain and give credibility to the possibility that the plane may have been travelling at 100 mph, as you specifically mentioned that speed as one of your allowable parameters.

I did not lie. Your comments are documented in public record on ATS.

Originally posted by tezzajw
You stated that 'it doesn't matter if the plane was going 500 mph or 100 mph, it still smashed into the building'.

Pretty black and white, no?

You clearly entertain and give credibility to the possibility that the plane may have been travelling at 100 mph, as you specifically mentioned that speed as one of your allowable parameters.

I did not say nor in any way, shape or form imply that the plane MAY have been traveling at 100 mph. The context of that statement was purely directed at the plane not flying over the building, period.

I did not lie. Your comments are documented in public record on ATS.

As are yours. I stand by what I said, it's clear what your doing, and it stops here and now.

The following quote shows you are clearly discussing the alleged plane in the video, hence the words 'viewer' and 'traffic'. You clearly state that it doesn't matter if the alleged plane in the video was going at 100 mph, therefore allowing that as a possible speed parameter. You clearly state that the plane does not pull up over the building and you have stated that the plane impacted the Pentagon. You imply an impact speed of 100 mph is permissable in this quote.

Originally posted by Soloist
It is obvious to the viewer that the aircraft is traveling far faster than the other traffic, and does not pull up over the building. It doesn't matter if the plane was going 500 mph or 100 mph, it still smashed into the building, and there is no proof at all that it didn't.

Originally posted by Soloist
I did not say nor in any way, shape or form imply that the plane MAY have been traveling at 100 mph. The context of that statement was purely directed at the plane not flying over the building, period.

Yes, Soloist, you did say that the plane in the video could have been travelling at 100 mph. Period.

Originally posted by Soloist
I stand by what I said, it's clear what your doing, and it stops here and now.

Well it's sure not clear what you're trying to achieve. You made a claim that the alleged plane on the video could have been travelling at 100 mph and then you try to deny that claim by calling me a liar!

Have you managed to supply some calculations for the alleged speed of the alleged plane, or are you going to stick with 'extremely fast moving' and 'heck of a lot faster' to subjectively avoid the facts?

posted by tezzajw
You stated that 'it doesn't matter if the plane was going 500 mph or 100 mph, it still smashed into the building'.

posted by Soloist
Pretty black and white, no?

Yes. Very black and white. Gee willikers, Soloist. Have you even the teeniest bit of honesty left in you? This belligerant need to defend the 9-11 perps no matter what has ruined you. No wonder your fellow government loyalists are avoiding you as you desperately beat your head against the Pentagon wall. The video is speeded up over double speed. Your aircraft 'tail' cannot possibly be traveling anywhere near the official speed of 535 mph. The slow moving 'tail' is already above the roof.

But the official Flight 77 aircraft cannot be flying at 100 mph because the official speed in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY was 460 knots (529.38 mph)(776.39 fps). It was the actual decoy aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex which was flying much slower; not your official aircraft. You cannot borrow our aircraft to rescript the OFFICIAL STORY. You are stuck with the official fantasy as it stands.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9604e6406807.jpg[/atsimg]

The average official speed during the 30 second 4 mile long official run into the Pentagon wall was 704 feet per second. Officially according to the NTSB, the official aircraft averaged a speed of 417 knots (480 mph) over the last 4 miles reaching a top speed of 460 knots at alleged official impact. But YOUR aircraft 'tail' in the Doubletree video was much too high (way above the roof) to possibly impact the Pentagon 1st floor.

The actual decoy aircraft proven flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and high above the light poles and overhead highway sign in its flight path and banking to its right, was also much too high to impact the Pentagon 1st floor according to multiple real living eyewitnesses.

Therefore that aircraft 'tail' you have spotted is the north flight path decoy aircraft and NOT your official south flight path Flight 77. Do you get it now Soloist?

Flight Path Study - American Airlines Flight 77 - NTSB

posted by tezzajw
You clearly entertain and give credibility to the possibility that the plane may have been travelling at 100 mph, as you specifically mentioned that speed as one of your allowable parameters.

posted by Soloist
I did not say nor in any way, shape or form imply that the plane MAY have been traveling at 100 mph. The context of that statement was purely directed at the plane not flying over the building, period.

posted by tezzajw
I did not lie. Your comments are documented in public record on ATS.

posted by Soloist
As are yours. I stand by what I said, it's clear what your doing, and it stops here and now.

Soloist. The aircraft you claim that 'tail' belongs to is already above the roof of the Pentagon. It does not need to pullup anymore. The roof of the Pentagon is down out of sight behind the elevated freeway. Even the Naval Annex up on the hill is not visible.

That explosion was masking the aircraft as it kept going. The flash/bang effect temporarily blinded many of the eyewitnesses. Even still some of them up at ANC stated that It dropped a bomb and kept going. It could have turned north behind the trees and continued out of sight, it could have dropped down a bit in altitude and continued hidden even more behind the elevated freeway, or the agents of the 9-11 perps who had the Doubletee video in their possession for years could have photoshopped the departing aircraft 'tail' out of the video.

reply to post by Soloist

posted by tezzajw
Soloist, if you are not able to prove your claim, then it's a lot easier to retract it. Your diversionary tactics don't work. Your claim is bunk and you know it, otherwise you would have proven it by now.

posted by Soloist
It's not my claim, it is merely more evidence of the fact the jet impacted the building and did NOT fly over the building. It is obvious to the viewer that the aircraft is traveling far faster than the other traffic, and does not pull up over the building. It doesn't matter if the plane was going 500 mph or 100 mph, it still smashed into the building, and there is no proof at all that it didn't.

[edit on 5/16/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston
Therefore that aircraft 'tail' you have spotted is the north flight path decoy aircraft and NOT your official south flight path Flight 77. Do you get it now Soloist?

Glad to see someone admit that the tail is a plane. I wonder if tezza will ask of you the same things he asks of non-CT'ers about your conclusion.

Please read back further to understand the context of the 100mph comment, since it's being taken as a literal value and not as it was so obviously intended.

Originally posted by Soloist
I wonder if tezza will ask of you the same things he asks of non-CT'ers about your conclusion.

No, I don't really care about SPreston's conclusions. (He probably knows I mean that in a nice way). He's attacking the official story, not promoting it, like you are.

Besides, SPreston's story hasn't been the catalyst for half the 'free' world to invade two countries in a war-for-profit scheme, has it?

Once more, Soloist, would you please provide a numerical speed to quantify your subjective claims of 'extremely fast moving' and 'heck of a lot faster'?

Originally posted by tezzajw
No, I don't really care about SPreston's conclusions.

Yep, I figured as much.

Besides, SPreston's story hasn't been the catalyst for half the 'free' world to invade two countries in a war-for-profit scheme, has it?

You are off topic, please post your anti-war rants in an appropriate thread. Thanks.

Once more, Soloist, would you please provide a numerical speed to quantify your subjective claims of 'extremely fast moving' and 'heck of a lot faster'?

The speed is relative to other objects, that is what is meant by 'heck of a lot faster'. No "numerical speed" applies to that statement. It never did, hence the 100 mph comment that you cannot or refuse to grasp.

Originally posted by Soloist
The speed is relative to other objects, that is what is meant by 'heck of a lot faster'. No "numerical speed" applies to that statement. It never did, hence the 100 mph comment that you cannot or refuse to grasp.

No, to the contrary - I completely grasp it.

You stated that it doesn't matter how fast the alleged plane was travelling, as it still hit the Pentagon. You threw in a permissable value of 100 mph to support your claim of how much the speed did not matter. I bet you wish that you had never typed it, huh? 100 mph, indeed... way to contradict the alleged FDR, Soloist.

The fact that you can't or won't supply a numerical speed for the object in the Doubletree video is quite telling. It makes your subjective speed comments look quite weak, especially when you're permitting a speed of 100 mph to be valid.

Originally posted by tezzajw
No, to the contrary - I completely grasp it.

You clearly don't. You pretend to have no concept of context. Until you grasp that, I cannot help you, nor can anyone else that understands how the English language works.

You stated that it doesn't matter how fast the alleged plane was travelling, as it still hit the Pentagon.

Right.

You threw in a permissable value of 100 mph to support your claim of how much the speed did not matter. I bet you wish that you had never typed it, huh? 100 mph, indeed... way to contradict the alleged FDR, Soloist.

I did not say it was permissable, as it's quite silly to assume the jet could ACTUALLY stay flying at 100 mph. Once again, it's about context, you've missed it or are ignoring it in your trolling attempts.

You are once again off-topic about the FDR. I thought you of all people would be able to keep the thread on topic.

The fact that you can't or won't supply a numerical speed for the object in the Doubletree video is quite telling. It makes your subjective speed comments look quite weak, especially when you're permitting a speed of 100 mph to be valid.

Read above to see why you're wrong.

Originally posted by Soloist
I did not say it was permissable, as it's quite silly to assume the jet could ACTUALLY stay flying at 100 mph.

You stated that the jet could have a speed of 100 mph. Your words, not mine.

Once again, it's about context, you've missed it or are ignoring it in your trolling attempts.

You stated that the jet could have a speed of 100 mph, as long as it hit the Pentagon, the speed didn't matter. Your words, your context. Not mine.

Perhaps you want to review the thread and see what you typed, Soloist.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8320ff7e11d8.jpg[/atsimg]


Hello,

We do not need any theories. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a huge 757 to get through that hole without any lateral damage.
Also the high tail must have folded down as well to fit into that hole without leaving a trace.

It is also IMPOSSIBLE for it to get so hot that it completely disintegrates 2 six-ton titanium engines, yet there are un-burnt desks and un-melted computer screens nearby ?

I don't know if it was a rocket or bomb that caused this, but I do know that it was not a 757.
You can believe whatever you like but, a 757 is just IMPOSSIBLE.

Thanks

Originally posted by tezzajw

You stated that the jet could have a speed of 100 mph. Your words, not mine.
You stated that the jet could have a speed of 100 mph, as long as it hit the Pentagon, the speed didn't matter. Your words, your context. Not mine.

Perhaps you want to review the thread and see what you typed, Soloist.

Perhaps you should review the thread and see what I typed, since you seem to be the only one having such a hard time understanding it.

Originally posted by Soloist
It doesn't matter if the plane was going 500 mph or 100 mph

The words - "It doesn't matter if" do not mean "could". Period. You can argue that all you like, but you're still wrong, now please get back on topic.

reply to post by mumblyjoe


mumbly, could you please elaborate?

Where exactly is that hole? Meaning, in which wall of the Pentagon? Can you cite a phot reference?

And, am confused about your mention of 'un-melted computer screens'. To what are you referring?

Thanks!!

Does anyone want to point out to mumbly that his picture isnt the entrance hole?

posted by Swampfox46_1999
Does anyone want to point out to mumbly that his picture isnt the entrance hole?

Can't you handle it?

While you are at it; explain how the official cause of that hole in mumbly's photo was first the nose cone of the alleged aircraft (which was really flying Over the Naval Annex and could not possibly be inside the Pentagon 1st floor), second one of the alleged landing gear (of the aircraft which could not possibly have entered the 1st floor because it was too high to hit the 1st floor), third one of the turbofan engines (both of which were on the aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex and could not be on two different flight paths at the same time), and finally (and still counting) that hole was officially caused by a cone of focused energy (no not from the starship Enterprise) from the exploding jet fuel (of which there is no sign whatsoever out in the A&E Drive). That should about cover it until the 9-11 perps make another adjustment to their fantasy tale.

Good job Swampfox.

Originally posted by Soloist
The words - "It doesn't matter if" do not mean "could". Period.

Yes, they do mean the same thing. You stated that it doesn't matter if the plane's speed was 100 mph. Therefore, you are allowing that as a possible parameter. What you're riled up about is that I caught you out on your poor logic and all of your back peddling isn't working.

Why don't you provide us with a numerical speed, supported by calculations? Scared you might be wrong?

Originally posted by tezzajw
Yes, they do mean the same thing. You stated that it doesn't matter if the plane's speed was 100 mph. Therefore, you are allowing that as a possible parameter. What you're riled up about is that I caught you out on your poor logic and all of your back peddling isn't working.

I'm not "riled up" at your diversionary antics, I think it's quite funny since you cannot add anything of substance to this thread, as even your own camp has stated they believe that is a plane as well.

You are simply fixated (wrongly) on a quote that you cannot seem to grasp, and instead of moving forward choosing to nitpick on a detail that has nothing to do with anything.

Sorry, this won't work on me.

Why don't you provide us with a numerical speed, supported by calculations? Scared you might be wrong?

I never claimed a speed, the object is CLEARLY moving much faster relative to the other moving traffic, in that I am not wrong. Sorry, you failed again.

Your poor attempt to derail the thread by something that is meaningless in the context of what the video shows (no flyover) has fallen flat.

reply to post by SPreston



Explain how your story is too goofy for words and does not match any of the evidence? No, I cannot do that.

Originally posted by Soloist
You are simply fixated (wrongly) on a quote that you cannot seem to grasp, and instead of moving forward choosing to nitpick on a detail that has nothing to do with anything.

Destroying your claim that the alleged plane can have a permissable speed of 100 mph is hardly nitpicking, Soloist.

It shows how willing believers in the official story are to bend logic to convince other people that their argument is true.

You stated that it doesn't matter how fast the speed of the alleged plane was going, as long as it hit the Pentagon. That's a destruction of logic.

I never claimed a speed, the object is CLEARLY moving much faster relative to the other moving traffic, in that I am not wrong. Sorry, you failed again.

Yes, you did. In fact you claimed an infinite number of speeds. You claimed anything from 100 to 500 mph being permissable.

Rather than quantify your claim more precisely, you settled for using 'extremely fast moving' and 'heck of a lot faster'.

Your poor attempt to derail the thread by something that is meaningless in the context of what the video shows (no flyover) has fallen flat.

The only attempted derails in this thread have come from you - and you're still doing it when you mention a fly over.

Originally posted by tezzajw
You stated that it doesn't matter how fast the speed of the alleged plane was going, as long as it hit the Pentagon. That's a destruction of logic.

That's right, the actual speed of the plane in the video does not matter to me. The only destruction of logic comes from the flyover fantasy, when this video clearly shows no plane flying over the Pentagon.

In fact you claimed an infinite number of speeds. You claimed anything from 100 to 500 mph being permissable.

100 to 500 mph is anything but an "infinite number of speeds". Thanks for being over dramatic in your ridiculous claim however.

Rather than quantify your claim more precisely, you settled for using 'extremely fast moving' and 'heck of a lot faster'.

Funny how you conveniently attempt to leave off the context of the statement, which is based on surrounding traffic. Weave and dodge, my friend, but it's quite obviously getting you nowhere.

The only attempted derails in this thread have come from you - and you're still doing it when you mention a fly over.

The topic is the video, which disproves the flyover theory, so it's right on in my opinion. I don't really care much what anyone else thinks who is not offering up anything remotely useful to this thread.