IT'S OFFICIAL: Even conspiracy web sites acknowledge it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
From 911blogger.com...as you recall, Dr. Legge is one of the people who co-authored the "Thermitidc material found in the WTC dust" report...

Dr Frank Legge on Visibility 9-11: Mounting Evidence Shows Boeing 757-200 Impact with Pentagon Probable

" Legge looks at this issue from a purely scientific perspective and is only interested in what he can prove to be true based on hard evidence."

You have to take clear note of this one sentence as it explain the rest of the story. While this is proper protocol, this type of reasoning will not bring us THE TRUTH simply due to the fact that evidence was destroyed, carried, and or hidden and classified.

so yes, when you look at what happened based on what evidence we were left with to investigate, he can make this assumption. But thats all it really is, an assumption. and it certainly does not prove anything, or make anything "Official".

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

Incorrect...(good MORNING, BTW....we are at almost opposite timezones....since you're in Oz....for me, it's approaching 2200...almost beddy bye time...)
NO....the video clearly shows the FUEL patterns in a computer SIMULATION of the event. It is the best available....until the Starship Enterprise shows up with ITS very more sophisticated and ever, ever more exact scenarios...
...well...actually, there DO exist "supercomputers" even today. Maybe not in the realm of the Purdeu University, alas.... they used what they had, to hand, to the best of their abiity.
Sorry it wasn't good enough for your oh, so "exacting" standards!! (Insert "lol" here...)

I'll translate for the people at home..

Weedwhacker posted a video to prove the OS but when it is proven to the video is clearly WRONG he twists and turns with all kinds of rants including bringing Star Trek into it..

Well, Beam me up quick Scotty, I'm drowning in BS down here...

reply to post by weedwhacker


Ok, I see what you're saying... you think it's toward D.C. and possibly the White House or the Capitol? That I can see too, well the White House (since they knew it was an attack by that point) but not the Pentagon, that to me would be further down the list.

But still, I don't know the exact timeline, or when the miles countdown actually started, 200 miles out? 100 miles out? I'm pretty sure 100 miles out was mentioned, so, let me get this straight. They knew it was a terrorist attack, knew there was a rogue bogey, knew it was heading for D.C. and even how far away and hence an approximate ETA and there were no jets to meet it even with advance intel and advance warning? Is that right?

Well who the hell knew where it was then? Answer me that.

What ORDER is he talking about?! Seems to me the kid was sent in by the Air Force maybe, why? Because they knew where the 'plane' was and wanted to shoot it down, perhaps even had it in their sights, but the 'Order' was not to shoot it down? Why would the aide, after coming in numerous times, pose such a question to Cheney? Someone on the other end, the guy who sent him in, seems to want to know the answer and pressed the aide to clarify and get it. But for what purpose? Was someone looking for an order to shoot it down and kept asking and wondering (Hence the question if the order still stood.) why he wasn't cleared to shoot it down?

It's possible the question was asked and pressed to shoot it down and Cheney was saying 'No' by sticking by his guns because if it was shot down it would foil everything at the Pentagon.

Of course we don't know who the aide was, was it a real exchange, were they talking about a plane and was Mineta lying or not and in on it too? Is it a clever bit of information to indicate to everyone that there was a 'plane' when there never really was one? Is the whole exchange disinfo?

Remember I seen staging in some Pentagon post "crash" photos... so I'll tell you what I think (conjecture based on logic and suspicion) Ready? OK.

1. Just like I think there may not have been a plane because of Kennedy...

WHAT?! Ya. Someone actually shot Kennedy in the head, remember? A film was recorded of it. It was a setup. It was captured on film etc. I think, like Kennedy, the people who did 9/11, if it happened the way they say, they'd have film of it and you would've seen it by now, or like IMMEDIATELY (Like the WTC, but they're mixing it up, can't show 3, slight on first hit, solid on second, none on third etc.)... no film means it didn't happen the way they say. It's simple logic. Conspiracy Logic!

Hey, those pictures were staged so anything goes now. It's either they don't have film because 3/3 filmed hits would be suspicious OR no film means no plane hit...

2. It wasn't "terrorists" because the White House WASN'T HIT.

Look at what was hit. One side of a 5 sided building, a newly reinforced mostly empty side at that. Now why is that? Well you can't very well plant explosives and engine parts in already occupied offices! Imagine: "Hey buddy, can we just slide your desk over 3 feet and store this old engine piece next to the water cooler there?" See, wouldn't work too well.

If "Staged" it would, LOGICALLY, have to be a "special" area of building. With special reason for it and special access to it etc. And LOOK - it was! The White House is a more prime target and the Capitol is, as you say, a bigger target. Those terrorists man, they ain't too bright or 'simple', for how could they take out the WTC towers with such military precision and yet miss the White House and the Capitol and hit a half vacant newly reinforced section of a mere 'office building'?

The reason why I mention Kennedy and prime targets is because everyone thinks 9/11 was a spur of the moment thing. A one day event etc. But I think there was planning far in advance of the actual day, stretching back at least a few years, maybe as Bob Kerrey of the 9/11 commission even says, going back some 30 years.

Peace

reply to post by backinblack


I am normally LOATHE to copy/paste/quote full CRAP####t posts...but in this case, I will make an exception:

Originally posted by backinblack
I'll translate for the people at home..

Weedwhacker posted a video to prove the OS but when it is proven to the video is clearly WRONG he twists and turns with all kinds of rants including bringing Star Trek into it..

Well, Beam me up quick Scotty, I'm drowning in BS down here...

IS THERE A POINT to that????

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

I am normally LOATHE to copy/paste/quote full CRAP####t posts...but in this case, I will make an exception:

Originally posted by backinblack
I'll translate for the people at home..

Weedwhacker posted a video to prove the OS but when it is proven to the video is clearly WRONG he twists and turns with all kinds of rants including bringing Star Trek into it..

Well, Beam me up quick Scotty, I'm drowning in BS down here...

Yes, to reply to you bringing up even sillier topics rather than answer a simple question..
How the hell did all that fuel in the wings penetrate the wall..???????

It's YOUR video proof so maybe just try to back it up....

IS THERE A POINT to that????

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

I am normally LOATHE to copy/paste/quote full CRAP####t posts...but in this case, I will make an exception:

Originally posted by backinblack
I'll translate for the people at home..

Weedwhacker posted a video to prove the OS but when it is proven to the video is clearly WRONG he twists and turns with all kinds of rants including bringing Star Trek into it..

Well, Beam me up quick Scotty, I'm drowning in BS down here...

Yes, to reply to you bringing up even sillier topics rather than answer a simple question..
How the hell did all that fuel in the wings penetrate the wall..???????

It's YOUR video proof so maybe just try to back it up....

IS THERE A POINT to that????

edit on 15-2-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

You know, that's a good question, I want to hear the answer to that too.

The fuselage doesn't contain any "fuel", so how come all the fuel didn't burn up outside in that fireball? The only breach in the wall was the hole, even the windows were reinforced and hardly shattered. There are pics of fire stretching all the way down the side past the Heliport even, why so much fire IN the building?

Again, good question.

Cheers

reply to post by backinblack


You seem to have at least one "fan"...hence a star for this post...(life of me, can't figure why...)

Your question:

How the hell did all that fuel in the wings penetrate the wall..???????

What part of "fluid" did you misunderstand??


Again....you are doggedly rabidly attracted to ONE thing....(AND....have seen this tactic before....you KNOW what I mean...it isn't attractive, nor conducive to discussion, on your part)....


YOUR "question"....

How the hell did all that fuel in the wings penetrate the wall..???????

is irrelevant. Has been explained again and again and again.....you are just tyring something here...."trolling" is so well known that its too easy....someone is trying to make it ("trolling") into a new sort of 'art-form' never been seen before.......I think this oughta be NIPPED in the bud!!

reply to post by weedwhacker

Can you point to me where it is explained? Im new to the thread and dont want to sift through 20 pages to find what your referring to? Or you can explain it?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

You seem to have at least one "fan"...hence a star for this post...(life of me, can't figure why...)
Your question:

How the hell did all that fuel in the wings penetrate the wall..???????

What part of "fluid" did you misunderstand??
Again....you are doggedly rabidly attracted to ONE thing....(AND....have seen this tactic before....you KNOW what I mean...it isn't attractive, nor conducive to discussion, on your part)....
YOUR "question"....

How the hell did all that fuel in the wings penetrate the wall..???????

is irrelevant. Has been explained again and again and again.....you are just tyring something here...."trolling" is so well known that its too easy....someone is trying to make it ("trolling") into a new sort of 'art-form' never been seen before.......I think this oughta be NIPPED in the bud!!

Well "snip it in the bud" Weedwhacker..Answer the question...
I do know basic physics so I will understand when you explain how all the fuel penetrated the solid wall and ignited on the inside...

reply to post by weedwhacker

is irrelevant. Has been explained again and again and again.....you are just tyring something here...."trolling" is so well known that its too easy....someone is trying to make it ("trolling") into a new sort of 'art-form' never been seen before.......I think this oughta be NIPPED in the bud!!

What I'm a troll.???

What's next, I get banned for asking questions you refuse to answer like many before me??

Of course we don't know who the aide was, was it a real exchange, were they talking about a plane and was Mineta lying or not and in on it too? Is it a clever bit of information to indicate to everyone that there was a 'plane' when there never really was one? Is the whole exchange disinfo?

Excellent observation; all this rubbish talk probably came from the official 9/11 screenplay to give people the impression there was an actual airplane involved in the attack. And if there was a plane that did a fly over, it probably had nothing to do with this script. They were obviously just adding layers of confusion.

Look at what was hit. One side of a 5 sided building, a newly reinforced mostly empty side at that.

.

Would it not have been much easier for this expert Top Gun Turban pilot to just dive bomb the aircraft into the center top portion of the massive Pentagon, thus creating much more devastation? Why all the impossible acrobatics to hit the side instead?

Yes it would have been much easier to dive bomb the plane into the center. Only two slight problems though: there was no Top Gun Turban and no hijcked airplane.

You seem to have at least one "fan"...hence a star for this post...(life of me, can't figure why...) is irrelevant. Has been explained again and again and again.....you are just tyring something here...."trolling" is so well known that its too easy....someone is trying to make it ("trolling") into a new sort of 'art-form' never been seen before.......I think this oughta be NIPPED in the bud!!

Our expert ATS pilot seems to be obsessed with stars and accusing people who ask reasonable questions of being trolls instead of answering what to him should be a fairly simple question. Ouch!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

I am normally LOATHE to copy/paste/quote full CRAP####t posts...but in this case, I will make an exception:

Originally posted by backinblack
I'll translate for the people at home..
Weedwhacker posted a video to prove the OS but when it is proven to the video is clearly WRONG he twists and turns with all kinds of rants including bringing Star Trek into it..
Well, Beam me up quick Scotty, I'm drowning in BS down here...

IS THERE A POINT to that????

Well, here is what I was replying to as you well know..
Guess I was simply trying to talk your language..

Incorrect...(good MORNING, BTW....we are at almost opposite timezones....since you're in Oz....for me, it's approaching 2200...almost beddy bye time...)
NO....the video clearly shows the FUEL patterns in a computer SIMULATION of the event. It is the best available....until the Starship Enterprise shows up with ITS very more sophisticated and ever, ever more exact scenarios...
...well...actually, there DO exist "supercomputers" even today. Maybe not in the realm of the Purdeu University, alas.... they used what they had, to hand, to the best of their abiity.
Sorry it wasn't good enough for your oh, so "exacting" standards!! (Insert "lol" here...)

reply to post by backinblack


I am going to take a guess... I am not a physicist or an expert, but here goes.

On impact the fuel containers would burst open and ignite from all of the sparks/fire resulting in a giant fireball (It was an enormous fire ball). Now, the fuel that was near the center mass of the plane would have followed the nose into the building, resulting in the fire inside the building.

Seems like such an easily explainable situation... Instead of asking all of these "How did this happen" ... You folks should work on proving ONE SINGLE fact..

Arguing with truthers (questioners) is like running in the special olympics... Even if you win your still..... you know the ending!

Favorite Truther quotes

Indeed. The Truthers are also like the IRA; they believe that the government has to be right about everything, while they only have to be right once.
The beauty of the troofer bafoonery is that even if the US government built an exact replica of the WTC complex out in the desert somewhere, and then recreated the attacks then the subsequent collapse. The troofers would still claim that the entire thing was rigged.

People are entitled to their own opinoins, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

I really do find it amusing how much the "truthers" hate Chomsky for his out-of-hand dismissal of their insanity. They all turned to the legendary radical critic of the US government, and he told them to see a psychiatrist. I love it.

reply to post by Resurrectio


I don't know if I would be classed as a "truther".

I feel I am more of a "questioner".

The difference, to me, being more a desire for explainations which are more "plausable"
than the O.S.

I am confident that one day the real truth will come out; as it usually does.

I just hope I live long enough to learn it.

Wow. I've been away from this thread for a day or two and return to see the simulation of the 'plane' entering the building. It focuses the mind on whether the wings and the fuel entered the building or not.

What Ive noticed with the OP believers is that with most topics they very carefully stay 'on message' and rarely go down avenues that might open up other areas of discussion.

I think Weedwhacker has temporarily gone off message with the comments posted concerning the wings and the fuel and is now trying to put the eel back in the jam jar and put the lid back on so to speak.

Calling people trolls for asking genuine questions is a desperate ploy after realising a tactical error - I dont mean to be offensive, I'm just saying it as I see it...

reply to post by hdutton


How is that JFK conspiracy coming? Moon landing working out well? There will always be people that will find a conspiracy in everything.. Unfortunately the internet has given them a way to make money and gain acceptance from like minded people.

Like I have stated several times now.. All of you "truthers" - "questioners" will/would be severely disappointed to find out that the OS was spot on.. Remember this... a truly good American/person would be relieved!!

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by hdutton

 

How is that JFK conspiracy coming? Moon landing working out well? There will always be people that will find a conspiracy in everything.. Unfortunately the internet has given them a way to make money and gain acceptance from like minded people.

Like I have stated several times now.. All of you "truthers" - "questioners" will/would be severely disappointed to find out that the OS was spot on.. Remember this... a truly good American/person would be relieved!!

I would think most truthers and questioners would simply be satisfied with the truth. I would.

I'm not American. I see how you link the concept of believing the OS with that of being a 'true American' and being 'good'. By implication therefore anyone who questions the OS is bad?

And to think you guys like to portray yourselves as the logical ones....

reply to post by eyestotheskies


Maybe there is a language barrier or you just simply are not that bright..

I linked "being RELIEVED" to being a "good American/person".. NOT believing the OS to being a good American...... damn people are ignorant!

Is reading comprehension glossed over in schools these days?

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by eyestotheskies

 

Maybe there is a language barrier or you just simply are not that bright.. I linked being RELIEVED to being a good American/person.. NOT believing the OS ... damn people are ignorant!

English is my first language and maybe there is a language barrier because what you meant to say and what you seemed to imply to my mind are subtly different. Maybe it's because we live on different Continents...