Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by rnaa
Why would they bother using a cruise missile, or some other plane, if they wanted to make it look like a 757. They had to make the thing disappear anyway, why not make it disappear the way they said it disappeared?

That is just another question the "truthers" are unable to answer - you forgotkilling the passengers and burning and dismembering their bodies and scattering them in the Pentagon.

And what would have happened if the cruise missile failed and did not hit such a solid target, or someone filmed it - it would bring down the whole conspiracy theory!

Originally posted by rnaa


Why would they bother using a cruise missile, or some other plane, if they wanted to make it look like a 757. They had to make the thing disappear anyway, why not make it disappear the way they said it disappeared?


[edit on 8/2/2010 by rnaa]

Because someone would have to fly a plane into the building. No one needs to be on-board a missile.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by rnaa
Why would they bother using a cruise missile, or some other plane, if they wanted to make it look like a 757. They had to make the thing disappear anyway, why not make it disappear the way they said it disappeared?

That is just another question the "truthers" are unable to answer -

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

WRONG AGAIN!

Originally posted by Lillydale
Because someone would have to fly a plane into the building. No one needs to be on-board a missile.

except one of the conspiracy theories is the planes were remote controlled....

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Lillydale
Because someone would have to fly a plane into the building. No one needs to be on-board a missile.

except one of the conspiracy theories is the planes were remote controlled....

Yup, that is one theory. Very good. Want a star for that?

One's theory does not discount my answer, sorry. It does not work that way. Can you prove they had a remote controlled plane ready and capable of that task?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The bullet is a good example but I'd use a high velocity bullet like from an AK-47 or M-16 to illustrate the point. Those bullets have so much velocity that they can fragment and the fragments can still leave exit holes.

Slight miss there, military bullets are FMJ "full metal jacket" - designed to penetrate with minimal deformation, hunting and target bullets come in a variety of fragility.

reply to post by Lillydale

Yup, that is one theory. Very good. Want a star for that?

One's theory does not discount my answer, sorry. It does not work that way. Can you prove they had a remote controlled plane ready and capable of that task?

757's come off the assembly line virtually ready to be flown by remote control. There is literally nothing that a semi-conscious conspirator would have to do. The Mythbusters team could rig it in 20 minutes I reckon. Truly, the pilot on a 757 has almost nothing to do for 95% of the flight, and even that is mostly checking that all the computers are running properly.

But just for the moment lets say that isn't correct, that the pilot has to have manual control of the stick, pedals, thrusters and what not. Never-the-less, the 757 is a fly by wire machine, and these controls are just 'joysticks' connected to a computer, just like your "Need-for-Speed" steering wheel. The pilot moves the stick, the computer interprets that as 'up elevator' sends the signal to the tail and the elevator goes up.

It doesn't take much imagination to disconnect the cable from the joystick and attach it to a remote control device. No on-board pilot is required.

And finally, even if none of that was true and a live, on-board pilot was required, these conspirators are SO effective that they must have been able to find an Ollie North or somebody to 'do their duty' and take one for the team.

Originally posted by rnaa

My question is, why, if they wanted to make it look like a 757 hit the wall, and they are so bloody good at conspiracies and hiding all the supposed passengers and all the preparations, why didn't they just crash the 757 into the Pentagon? If they wanted it to look like a 757 hit the Pentagon, why didn't they just hit it with a 757? What is so hard about that?
[edit on 8/2/2010 by rnaa]

Because it is extremely difficult (if near impossible) for a high lift wing to fly that close to the ground at high speeds. vis.

quote
The phenomenon of wing in ground effect is caused by the ground interrupting the wingtip vortices and downwash behind the wing. When a wing is flown very close to the ground, wingtip vortices are unable to form effectively due to the obstruction of the ground. The result is lower induced drag, which increases the speed and lift of the aircraft while it is experiencing the ground effect.
end quote

more here

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by downisreallyup

The thing I find fascinating is just how powerful the aversion to uncomfortable truth really is in some people. So-called "truthers" are merely people who have overcome their own aversion to such things and would rather know the ugly truth than continue to believe a comfortable lie.

Beautifully said and great video! Well worth 8 minutes!


[edit on 8-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

reply to post by Lillydale

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

WRONG AGAIN!

About what?

Originally posted by Lillydale

One's theory does not discount my answer, sorry. It does not work that way. Can you prove they had a remote controlled plane ready and capable of that task?

Well, yes, the Global Hawk, Eurohawk and others are remote controlled aircraft.
Many different types of UAV can be seen here.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by dereks
And what would have happened if the cruise missile failed and did not hit such a solid target, or someone filmed it - it would bring down the whole conspiracy theory!

No, simple excuse, CM was fired to protect the Pentagon from aircraft "X".

Give these people enough intelligence to create plan "B"

reply to post by prof-rabbit

No, simple excuse, CM was fired to protect the Pentagon from aircraft "X".

Give these people enough intelligence to create plan "B"

I ask again, why wasn't plan "A" to hit it with a 757? Then they wouldn't need a plan "B" of this kind.

Or don't they have enough intelligence to figure that out?

[edit on 8/2/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by dereks

except one of the conspiracy theories is the planes were remote controlled....

AND, that"theory" breaks down in the cold, hard reality of ...well, REALITY!!!


Let me provide a run-down......


We will IGNORE the NYC attacks, fpr the moment, since th topic is the Pentagon.

BUT!!!! This applies to ALL four hijacked airplanes, on that day!!!

Much has been made about the possibility of "remote controlled" Boeing 767s that attacked --- or in this "scewnario" were remotely flown into the WTC. RUBBISH!

May I repeat that....RUBBISH!!!!

OK, but since we're on about the Pentagon, let's focus on that....

Same answer...RUBBISH!!!! As regards "remote control"...

There are, simply, too may factors involved to convince THIS airline pilot (among thousands of others...and not the handfull of idiots who lend themselves to the "Pilots For 911 TRruth" cabal...) that, not only is the FDR data from , in this case American Airlinas 77 (rest their souls ) completely accurate, but also the only other recoverable FDR, which was frnm United Airlines 93.

I have reviewed the datat fromj BOTH of those FDRs, and with my experience in the types of airplanes involved, NOTHING looks wrong to me.

I have thousands of hours in the equipment types, the B-757 and the B-767, and I am type rated on both, along with the B- 737 and the DC-9/MD-80.

Of course, SOME pilots have come forth, via the "Pilots For 9/11 Truth" website....roughly ten to twelve, by my count....who share my experience on the airplanes in question...(B-757/767) YET!!!!! WHY only a handsful, at the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth"? AND, WHNY do most of the 'core members' never post comments?????

For instance, and this may be a sore subject for ATS Admins....Captain John Lear.

I respect his accomplishments, certainly. He holds records....but so does Howard Hughes.

NOW, not wishing to compare Captain John Lear to Howard Hughes....but....draw your own conclusions, baes on the fact that Howard Huheghes is dead, and a certain legacy,..and as far as I know, Capt. John Lear is stoill alive, and kickin'....his records still remain, but.....

..well, I will leave that for you all to decide....

Originally posted by prof-rabbit
No, simple excuse, CM was fired to protect the Pentagon from aircraft "X".
Give these people enough intelligence to create plan "B"

So...you are claiming a cruise missile was launched as a defense against an aircraft coming in aiming at the Pentagon?

Is that what you are saying?

The only people who would believe that are those who are uneducated in the details of air-to-air weapons and ordnance used in the point defense of a defended target. The only people who would believe that a cruise missile was launched as a defense against an airborne threat are ignorant, unthinking, uneducated morons who choose not to get smart on what a cruise missile is used for.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by rnaa
Why would they bother using a cruise missile, or some other plane, if they wanted to make it look like a 757. They had to make the thing disappear anyway, why not make it disappear the way they said it disappeared?

That is just another question the "truthers" are unable to answer -

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

WRONG AGAIN!

Very easy to answer... that particular portion of the Pentagon was reinforced so that it would not be that badly damaged. Then the missile was used to do very controlled damage. Obviously and logically, they did not want damage to the entire building, but only to a particular location... the place that was reinforced.

So don't say that "truthers" can't answer any particular issue. Just because you haven't heard the answer that doesn't mean the answer is not there.

reply to post by trebor451


trebor, THANK YOU!!!

Even though your (and this) post will go unnoticed....

SO FAR, in recap...we HAVE:

1) A "drone" painted to resemble an American airlines Boeing 757

2) NOW, it get even funnier...despite ALL of the evidence, some of "them" want you to believe that this "drone" (somehow, in secret, 'painted' to resemble the American AIrlines paint scheme --- even though the Global Hawk drone looks NOTHING LIIKE a large pasenger jet, and of coiurse NONE of the compoinets fo the Global Hawk were fond int he devastation at the Pentagon;....

2a)....this "image is an obvious photoshop...someone PLESE check it out!!!

3)...usually there are three... THREE points, to make one's case.

I have made my case, in previous posts --- please feel free to scroll up, and check the links, if NOT on this thread then on others.

I grow weary of the ignorance....

reply to post by downisreallyup


NONSENSE!!!!

Please look at the damage photos!!!!

OR, just keep parroting the "truthers" lies...whatever yoy choose flown in the same way, differnent facade of the Pentagon???

Damage to building structrre likely the same, assuming same angle of impact..

"truthers" rising to make up liie???? 'priceless.........




[edit on 9 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by rnaa
Here' the deal people.

For the sake of argument, lets assume that:

• the Gummint is evil - not too hard
  
• the Gummint wants to kill a lot of people to get them mad the guys with all the oil
  
• so they decide to bomb the Pentagon with a cruise missle
  
• But they want to make it look like a hijacked 757
  
• So they hijack a plane and ditch it in the ocean after sequestering all the passengers on an island in the Pacific
  
• then they hit the Pentagon with the cruize missle
  
• then they scatter debris from a 757 all over the the Pentagon
  
• then they lie to everyone, tell them the towel heads did it, and march off to war
  

Fine. At least for the sake of argument.

My question is, why, if they wanted to make it look like a 757 hit the wall, and they are so bloody good at conspiracies and hiding all the supposed passengers and all the preparations, why didn't they just crash the 757 into the Pentagon? If they wanted it to look like a 757 hit the Pentagon, why didn't they just hit it with a 757? What is so hard about that?

The first rule of lying is: tell the truth, that way you are less likely to get caught out later.

Why would they bother using a cruise missile, or some other plane, if they wanted to make it look like a 757. They had to make the thing disappear anyway, why not make it disappear the way they said it disappeared?


[edit on 8/2/2010 by rnaa]

Once again, they wanted to limit the damage. A 757 would have endangered the entire building. Missiles are highly controllable and tunable. That is why they reinforced that particular section of the Pentagon and also made sure that nobody important was in that particular small section. A 757 would have done far more damage, and remember, that is their headquarters for running the ensuing war!

Originally posted by prof-rabbit

Originally posted by rnaa

My question is, why, if they wanted to make it look like a 757 hit the wall, and they are so bloody good at conspiracies and hiding all the supposed passengers and all the preparations, why didn't they just crash the 757 into the Pentagon? If they wanted it to look like a 757 hit the Pentagon, why didn't they just hit it with a 757? What is so hard about that?
[edit on 8/2/2010 by rnaa]

Because it is extremely difficult (if near impossible) for a high lift wing to fly that close to the ground at high speeds. vis.

quote
The phenomenon of wing in ground effect is caused by the ground interrupting the wingtip vortices and downwash behind the wing. When a wing is flown very close to the ground, wingtip vortices are unable to form effectively due to the obstruction of the ground. The result is lower induced drag, which increases the speed and lift of the aircraft while it is experiencing the ground effect.
end quote

more here

en.wikipedia.org...

Excellent point! Being a pilot myself I can tell you that ground effect is what makes it harder to get the plane on the ground, especially when coming in too fast. I can only imagine how hard it would be for an experienced 757 pilot to fly the plane inches off the ground, without actually scraping the ground... yeah right! Remember, experienced pilots are used to judging the ground distance with LANDING GEAR down.

It is utterly ridiculous to imagine that a guy who was never in a 757 was capable of doing something that even experienced pilots could not do!

Laughable!