The Pentagon was hit on 9/11 it wasn't staged.

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

I didn't miss your post, I replied to it. Please reference Post Number: 715035 on page seven of this thread.

Post 715035 does not respond to mine no. 715172. Which was in counter to your 715035. But not a problem, since considering what I had read the instructor of these pilots had to say about their lack of skills, I doubt it is as easy as spending time on a game, and would give favour to the odds of a remote control takeover as mentioned in my link, over flying 25 feet above ground and pulling off such a low approach at a speeding 350mph without slamming into the ground.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

I didn't miss your post, I replied to it. Please reference Post Number: 715035 on page seven of this thread.

Post 715035 does not respond to mine no. 715172. Which was in counter to your 715035. But not a problem, since considering what I had read the instructor of these pilots had to say about their lack of skills, I doubt it is as easy as spending time on a game, and would give favour to the odds of a remote control takeover as mentioned in my link, over flying 25 feet above ground and pulling off such a low approach at a speeding 350mph without slamming into the ground.

You know I was thinking about this more. They say that those "pilots" would never be able to pull off that move. the force on the plane would be something like 6.something g's meaning not even exsperianced pilots wouldnt even be able to pull that off.

As for playing a flight sim on a computer. Its not like the real deal. I have played flight sims since i was little, from what you are saying I should be able to get in a plane and take off. I find that very hard to believe.

And about that link from earlier I think some of the info is true. but I have a documentary on 9/11 that states some old guy seen some type of small plane like a lear jet fly over arlington right before the pentagon incident. So in that we will get all kinda of info from difrent people who think diffrent things. The only way we will be able to see if any of us are right is to wait 50 yrs for the gvmt to declassify the documents that they did in fact take down the WTC and hit the pentagon and shoot down 93 with 266 people on it.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween


Post 715035 does not respond to mine no. 715172. Which was in counter to your 715035. But not a problem, since considering what I had read the instructor of these pilots had to say about their lack of skills, I doubt it is as easy as spending time on a game, and would give favour to the odds of a remote control takeover as mentioned in my link, over flying 25 feet above ground and pulling off such a low approach at a speeding 350mph without slamming into the ground.

Again, I DID reply to your post in the afore mentioned one. I will not repost the entire thing...you'll have to go and actually read it for yourself, but here is the last paragraph;

My personal opinion on the Pentagon plane was that he was trying to hit the center courtyard where he would have done much more damage, but hit short....the outside walls are much more sturdily built, and held up quite well for what happened to them...

Now, you are talking about "skimming the ground at 25 feet". Where, pray tell, are you getting that information? The trajectory of the final approach was most likely much steeper than that, and you have shown no evidence to suggest otherwise that I have seen. Do you think they flew the aircraft at 25ft AGL for a couple of miles before they hit? No, sorry, even a few thousand feet is out of the question as they would have hit something...a power line, light pole, another building. Not possible. Your theory is fatally flawed due to the fact that they could not have flown through solid objects. Even a power line would have brought the bird down.

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

I DID reply to your post in the afore mentioned one. I will not repost the entire thing...you'll have to go and actually read it for yourself, but here is the last paragraph;

Even though I said it was no longer important, but since you wish to address same, my first post was no. 713951, my second; 714657, neither of which were addressed to you or responded to by you. I first addressed you with post no. 714821, where I question only the skill required to fly a 757 into a building while skimming the ground. You responded on 715035. My next post in �counter� was no. 715172, where I raise the issue of flight controls takeover. Then raised again I post no. 717337 where I mentioned you did not respond to my counter post no. 715172. So no you still have not responded to my counter. But again that�s fine, moving along;

Now, you are talking about "skimming the ground at 25 feet". Where, pray tell, are you getting that information? The trajectory of the final approach was most likely much steeper than that, and you have shown no evidence to suggest otherwise that I have seen. Do you think they flew the aircraft at 25ft AGL for a couple of miles before they hit? No, sorry, even a few thousand feet is out of the question as they would have hit something...a power line, light pole, another building. Not possible. Your theory is fatally flawed due to the fact that they could not have flown through solid objects. Even a power line would have brought the bird down.

Cool Hand provided a link, which I looked at and followed many others within same.
1)One individual claims he was standing outside when the plane�s wing almost hit him. Unless he is a giant, that wing had to have been at least 7 feet off the ground, which means the underbelly is pretty close to scraping the ground. Another person declared �it was 6 feet off the ground.�

2)The light standards were hit, and at least one knocked over as the craft traveled across the roadway. Light standards are what 20-35 feet above ground? The craft would have been descending, by the time it crossed over the roadway and onto the field, it would have had to be even lower than the 35 feet to knock over the posts.

3) The bottom floor of the pentagon is not on stilts, the craft supposedly hit between the first and second floors, Even so it is 4 stories high with a 10 foot roof, or just under 17 feet for each floor, with a total height of 77 feet. The 757 according to this: members.fortunecity.com... is 18 feet from the bottom of the engine to the top of the cabin.

That means that the craft would have had to have entered the first floor with at least a generous 17 feet slicing into the second floor.

5) Post 733429 shows the security camera�s video of the incoming flight just as it passed in front of some sort of box like structure, which as you can from the clip is quite short compared to the building. Now I do recall reading somewhere some time ago about this box, and memory tells me it stood no higher than 6 feet. Note the pylon beside it. It is not wide enough to totally obscure the length of a 757 either as it passes behind it.

Here is a better picture of that box www.freedomfiles.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

The aircraft�s height was completely obscured by this object and within a blink of an eye, it slams into the bottom two floors of the pentagon. Consequently, the 25 foot allotment would be representative of descent by the time it had approached the roadway.


[edit on 8/10/04 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Even though I said it was no longer important, but since you wish to address same, my first post was no. 713951, my second; 714657, neither of which were addressed to you or responded to by you. I first addressed you with post no. 714821, ...and so on...

[edit on 8/10/04 by SomewhereinBetween]

I'm not about to go back and reiterate what I have already said for a forth or fifth time, or go back and search out every message number you posted, but I will address the last part about the eye witnesses by letting you know what we get at our Command Post on a nearly daily basis.

We fly low-level training missions here on a daily basis, C-130s, not a small aircraft. We never, repeat NEVER fly below 300 feet AGL (above ground level) except for ridge crossings, which can take us as low as 200 AGL for a brief moment. The rest of the visual routs are flown between 300 and 1000 feet AGL. We get DAILY complaints from people who say we are flying at "treetop level", that they were looking down at the top of our aircraft from their second story window, that we had a dust trail kicking up behind us, and that we took out their TV antenna with a wing tip.

Are any of these true? No. They are ridiculous claims. Do the people THINK we are flying that low? Yes, because they have no concept of what flying really low means.

Since there is no positive photographic evidence to prove the trajectory of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon that I have seen or that you have shown, I have to fall back on what I know about aircraft and aeronautics. A normal glide scope for an approach is 3 to 5 degrees. Try it out in a flight sim someday, and you'd be surprised at how steep that really is. The aircraft could not have "skimmed the ground" for any distance as you claim. To say so, and to also claim that the person flying the aircraft did not have the required skills to pilot the aircraft to it's final destiny is absolute speculation. You do not know the skill level of the pilot. Should you find any positive evidence to the contrary, please present it and we can go from there.






[edit on 10-8-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]

On 9/11, pertaining to the Pentagon attack, the media first reported a "fire on the mall", then a "truck bomb", then a "helicopter crash on the helipad", THEN a "plane strangely circling the fire at the pentagon" and finally, "a plane hit the pentagon". I taped it, and still have it, flipping between the cable and network channels. And NO footage of the pentagon was shown until after they all got their story straight.

There was PLENTY of time after the second tower got hit ( much less the first). Why on Earth did nobody "think" to patrol our Capitol city during that time ? It's ridiculous ! Regardless of whether they would have shot it down, or not, surely there would have been fighters in the sky during that hour or so, unless somebody made sure they didn't. If that sounds crazy, then think of how equally crazy the "official" story sounds.

And what of all the pictures of the Pentagon lawn unblemished ( til the sand )?
Where were the wings, the bodies ? Why wasn't the building damaged any worse than it was ?
And how could any witnesses identify the exact model of the plane, when it hit so fast that the lone camera didn't catch it, and there was no identifiable wreckage ?

Also - I've read repeated articles and spoke with people who have repeatedly tried to make a cell phone call from a commercial flight. They say it can't be done. and the only documented calls that i've read about were the "let's roll" guy, who never spoke to his family, only an "operator"; and the other was Barbara Olsen, BIG TIME BUSH CRONY whose husband is the US Solicitor general in the Bush Administration.

Seriously - what red-blooded American man would let some stupid hijacker take control for fear of getting stuck with a box cutter ?
And if they had guns, how in the hell did they manage that ?

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

We fly low-level training missions here on a daily basis, C-130s, not a small aircraft. We never, repeat NEVER fly below 300 feet AGL (above ground level) except for ridge crossings, which can take us as low as 200 AGL for a brief moment. The rest of the visual routs are flown between 300 and 1000 feet AGL. We get DAILY complaints from people who say we are flying at "treetop level", that they were looking down at the top of our aircraft from their second story window, that we had a dust trail kicking up behind us, and that we took out their TV antenna with a wing tip.

Are any of these true? No. They are ridiculous claims. Do the people THINK we are flying that low? Yes, because they have no concept of what flying really low means.

Since there is no positive photographic evidence to prove the trajectory of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon that I have seen or that you have shown, I have to fall back on what I know about aircraft and aeronautics. A normal glide scope for an approach is 3 to 5 degrees. Try it out in a flight sim someday, and you'd be surprised at how steep that really is. The aircraft could not have "skimmed the ground" for any distance as you claim. To say so, and to also claim that the person flying the aircraft did not have the required skills to pilot the aircraft to it's final destiny is absolute speculation. You do not know the skill level of the pilot. Should you find any positive evidence to the contrary, please present it and we can go from there.

Well now that is just a leap into obfuscation. I am not interested in the lowest altitude you would fly a C-130, unless of course you fly that C-130 into sides of buildings.

Yes there is photographic evidence, as presented on this thread, and as provided by a security camera.

I am not interested in trying anything out in SIM, I may like it, and after just a handful of simulations decide that your FAA has to grant me a commercial pilot's licence, based on your proffered expertise. I am sure that would please the passengers.

The fact remains that the craft sheared those standards, knocked over at least one, and slammed into the first and second floors of the Pentagon, which had to have been at a maximum, 16 feet off the ground.

Now what is it exactly that you dispute about that? The Pentagon's records? I don't really think you want to go there considering the gist of this thread. but be my guest, if you insist.

[edit on 8/11/04 by SomewhereinBetween]

well, if you are debating what have happened there, and if you realy belive it was a plane, have some fun trying to see where the plane is, and try to answer some of this questions
acording to this, it was a "bomb truck" , but as far as i cans see, it can be anything, but not a plane.well, take a look:

www.asile.org...

i just have a counter argument for the 5th question, but for the others...

[edit on 11-8-2004 by kangaxx]typos

[edit on 11-8-2004 by kangaxx]

Originally posted by Croker
Seriously - what red-blooded American man would let some stupid hijacker take control for fear of getting stuck with a box cutter ?

Seriously, you may want to do some research into the pilot of that plane.

His autopsy determined that he was killed with one of those box cutters after attempting to fight off the terrorists.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Well now that is just a leap into obfuscation. I am not interested in the lowest altitude you would fly a C-130, unless of course you fly that C-130 into sides of buildings.

Yes there is photographic evidence, as presented on this thread, and as provided by a security camera.

I am not interested in trying anything out in SIM, I may like it, and after just a handful of simulations decide that your FAA has to grant me a commercial pilot's licence, based on your proffered expertise. I am sure that would please the passengers.

The fact remains that the craft sheared those standards, knocked over at least one, and slammed into the first and second floors of the Pentagon, which had to have been at a maximum, 16 feet off the ground.

Now what is it exactly that you dispute about that? The Pentagon's records? I don't really think you want to go there considering the gist of this thread. but be my guest, if you insist.

[edit on 8/11/04 by SomewhereinBetween]

Obfuscation? Not in the least, unless you simply don't understand what is being presented, which you are proving that you don't by your post.

The altitude issue was presented to show that people who witness things very often exaggerate what they see, whether consciously or unconsciously, i.e., "He was only ten feet off the ground!", when in reality he was most likely much higher.

I won't even address the sim response, as it was simply ridiculous and twisted as to be taken totally out of context.

What I dispute is your adamant ascertation that you KNOW the aircraft was "skimming the ground". You claim photographic proof, but have shown none...there is no aircraft that I see in any photo you have posted. In the one with the cones and box, even if there WERE a frame showing the aircraft, which there is not, the trajectory would be next to impossible to determine, as there would not be enough of the glide scope or the attitude of the aircraft shown. Your "16 feet high" comment has nothing to do with anything, as even if the aircraft was coming in at a greatly increased angle of attack and hit exactly at the conjuncture of the building and the ground where it did, the same damage would have occurred. And since you claim to know so much about these "standards", exactly how far from the building were they?

Here's a link to something you might be interested in that might jog something...

homepage.ntlworld.com...

I post that link not for the "conspiracy" portions of it that claim a different color underbelly, as the angle of the sun easily explains that, or the size of the hole, as that is explained again by angle of attack, both on the vertical and horizontal axis', but notice the "dives very quickly towards the Pentagon" portion in the sub-title. Kind of makes you say, Hmmmmm.......

So, if your only claim is that the pilot could not have flown the aircraft into the pentagon because he didn't have the ability, come up with some proof. But let me say now as I have said in the past, you cannot prove a negative...but hey, if you wish to try, bring it on�








[edit on 11-8-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]

Several here have said that it was impossible for passengers to call home from the aircraft. Not true. The callers placed their calls from the onboard phones in the back of the seats. The hijackers actually told them they could on one aircraft. Again, during the act, build the terror, get the most bang for the buck, highest visibility.

And oh, by the way, cell phones DO work on aircraft, just not very well. Within range of a cell tower they will work. I have done so myself on several occasions....

To Affirmative.

Obfuscation? Not in the least, unless you simply don't understand what is being presented, which you are proving that you don't by your post.

The altitude issue was presented to show that people who witness things very often exaggerate what they see, whether consciously or unconsciously, i.e., "He was only ten feet off the ground!", when in reality he was most likely much higher.

Yes you are obfuscating. Your entire argument is based on conjecture supported entirely by a computer game, to try and prove that the pilot could have flown a 757 into the Pentagon. Without recognizing it, you are actually arguing against your position that this feat was expedited by amateurs.

Rumsfeld ��Well, we know there were large numbers, many dozens, in the aircraft that flew at full power, steering directly into the -- between, I think, the first and second floor of the -- opposite the helipad� 09/11/01

Is he lying?

Arlington County fire chief, Ed Plaugher-It did not break through to all five rings, and I do not know the measurements. 09/12/01
�there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing. 09/12/01 �..

Or him?

Ass.SecDef Mitchell: This is on the first floor. This is very close to where the airplane went into. 09/15/01

This is a hole in -- there was a punch-out. They suspect that this was where a part of the aircraft came through this hole, although I didn't see any evidence of the aircraft down there�This is right inside the E Ring09/15/01

Q: Did you see any evidence of the aircraft anywhere?

Mitchell: Yes, I did. You could see just small pieces of it.

Mitchell: Some of the damage at the entrance there.

The wall behind this is sheared off. That's why it's daylight that's streaming into the office there.

Q: Can you say at what level this is -- like on the first floor or --

Mitchell: This is on the fifth -- fifth floor. You can see this room here, this is one of the older windows. You can see how it's blasted in with the Venetian blinds in the back.

What about him?

DoD slide show on the impact of the craft. www.defenselink.mil... Note the trajectory of the aircraft was upwards, not downwards. Slide 3 the title of the slide is, Illustration of Initial Impact.

Note slide 9 pointing to the gaping hole in the ground floor where it states: �Despite columns being sheared off by the plane entering the Pentagon.� The Title is Reinforced external walls.

Lee Evy Pentagon Renovation head: �I'm going to review with you some information with regard to the route of the plane, the impact, the effect it's had on the building,�

The path of the airplane seems to have taken it along this route, so it entered the building slightly, on this photo, slightly to the left of what we call corridor four�

So it impacted the building in an area that had been renovated, but its path was at a -- it appears to be at a diagonal, so that it entered in wedge one but passed through into areas of wedge two,

one of my people happened to be walking on this sidewalk and was right about here as the aircraft approached. It came in. It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in. He happened to hear this terrible noise behind him, looked back, and he actually -- he's a Vietnam veteran -- jumped prone onto the ground so the aircraft would not actually -- he thinks it (would have) hit him; it was that low.

On its way in, the wing clipped. Our guess is an engine clipped a generator. We had an emergency temporary generator to provide life-safety emergency electrical power, should the power go off in the building. The wing actually clipped that generator, and portions of it broke off...

Maybe he is lying also?

If you continue to disagree with the low height impact to the building, the shearing off of the light standards, then you are effectively saying the Pentagon has been lying to us. Now I am open to finding the truth here. If in fact the craft did not knock down light standards, did not cause a man to duck, and did not fly into the bottom floor as we can plainly see, then I have to believe that we are being lied to by Government and military officials. If it did do all of that, then I have to believe that since you would prefer to argue that the altitude was a figment of imagination, you agree that an amateur pilot could not traverse just feet above the ground.

Note: I am trying to learn the code in here, but having difficulty with same, QuotesI can't seem to nail, when the post is made despite the preview showing it works. I apologize if that happens.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Your entire argument is based on conjecture supported entirely by a computer game, to try and prove that the pilot could have flown a 757 into the Pentagon. Without recognizing it, you are actually arguing against your position that this feat was expedited by amateurs.

What?? Where in the hell do you get that clap trap from? Absolutely not!!! Do NOT put words in my mouth! You are obviously simply ignoring most of what I post, as you haven't a clue what I have said in the past. You have been trying to make the point that the act was perpetrated by either a professional pilot or remote control, saying it is impossible for someone without years of training to carry out such an act. My contention is that you are wholly incorrect, as the individuals who flew the planes all had some flight training, and honed their skills on flight simulators. Most had pilot�s licenses, so they were NOT neophytes as you claim. Here's a little info, and there is tons more out there about them.

library.thinkquest.org...

What is the Runsfeld quote supposed to show? There is no question as to where the plane hit. Unfortunately, you continue to ignore the trajectory issue, but you show that you are simply clueless on what is being presented. You prove is shortly yourself...I'll get to that...

So are you trying to say that the fire chief was saying that there WAS NO AIRCRAFT? Get real! You are picking and choosing what you post. The key in that statement is "visible". He couldn't see any "large sections". Why? Perhaps many reasons such as the fact that the building has collapsed on the wreckage and the aircraft was mostly disintegrated upon impact. This is the case with all those you quote talking about small pieces. Did you expect to have the plane break in two? You are grasping at straws with this one.

DoD slide show on the impact of the craft. www.defenselink.mil... Note the trajectory of the aircraft was upwards, not downwards. Slide 3 the title of the slide is, Illustration of Initial Impact.

Ok, I'm going to restrain myself here. When I first looked at the picture and what you wrote about the trajectory being "upwards", I had to go back and forth a few times...then I just started laughing so hard I almost cried.

Are you kidding me? "...the trajectory of the aircraft was upwards, not downwards..." Do you realize how stupid that is? And how utterly impossible? Is this a new kind of sub-terrainian aircraft?

The picture you refer to only shows the horizontal trajectory, not the vertical. But hey, that was a really funny one.

If you continue to disagree with the low height impact to the building, the shearing off of the light standards, then you are effectively saying the Pentagon has been lying to us. Now I am open to finding the truth here. If in fact the craft did not knock down light standards, did not cause a man to duck, and did not fly into the bottom floor as we can plainly see, then I have to believe that we are being lied to by Government and military officials.

Again, you refuse to answer my questions as 1, you don't know the answers, and 2, the answers might not support your ridiculous claims. The eye witness phenomenon I have already discussed. There is positive proof that people often exaggerate what they see, especially under duress.

How far was the witness standing from the building? How far are these "light standards" from the building? 10 feet? 20? 50? 100? How tall? 30 feet? 60? 80? It makes a HUGE difference, and to claim that because they were hit the trajectory was merely feet off the ground is ridiculous. Additionally, you failed to address the link I posted that shows the aircraft and describes it as "diving very quickly". Ignoring things that don't support your position, eh? Not surprising.

If it did do all of that, then I have to believe that since you would prefer to argue that the altitude was a figment of imagination, you agree that an amateur pilot could not traverse just feet above the ground.

You would be wrong. You continue to attempt to twist things around to prove your inaccurate point, but unfortunately for your arguments, they are not supported by science or the incomplete evidence you pick and choose, and then present.

Nice try, no cigar. And please, do not presume to say what I agree to or not, or to put words in my mouth. What I have posted is a matter of record, and your attempts to change that simply make you look rather foolish.

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Your entire argument is based on conjecture supported entirely by a computer game, to try and prove that the pilot could have flown a 757 into the Pentagon. Without recognizing it, you are actually arguing against your position that this feat was expedited by amateurs.

What?? Where in the hell do you get that clap trap from? Absolutely not!!! Do NOT put words in my mouth! You are obviously simply ignoring most of what I post, as you haven't a clue what I have said in the past. You have been trying to make the point that the act was perpetrated by either a professional pilot or remote control, saying it is impossible for someone without years of training to carry out such an act. My contention is that you are wholly incorrect, as the individuals who flew the planes all had some flight training, and honed their skills on flight simulators. Most had pilot�s licenses, so they were NOT neophytes as you claim. Here's a little info, and there is tons more out there about them.

It is your �claptrap.� I reference:

MrMulder�s post to which you replied: Did you know that the "supposed" pilot of flight 77, Hani Hanjour, got kicked out of the three pilot schools he was attending because he wasn't good enough in the past.

Your Post 714691- You can teach a monkey to fly an airplane�I've taken Boy Scout troops on tours of the full motion simulator and had them landing the thing in short order with very little assistance by me, other than throttle control and talking them through it. Think about these terrorists. They had many hours in small aircraft, and were trying to upgrade to commercial aircraft for the purposes of doing what they did. They also used computer flight simulators that are remarkably realistic. It was hardly the first time they had crashed into the Pentagon.

I fly the sim through downtown all the time. Keeps the skills sharp�.

Of course I MISS the buildings�on purpose�.

My Post714821- Affirmative, is your point then, that the skills necessary to become a pilot could be procured through enough hours spent on SIM games, or that the mechanics of the aircraft is such that anyone with a few flying hours in a light aircraft could master, or that it really takes little skill to propel a 757 travelling at a speed of 250-300mph, into the bottom floor of a building without skimming the ground? (NOTE 1)

Your response 715025-

You would be astounded how simple it actually is to fly an aircraft, and size makes very little difference�With a little practice just about anything is possible, and simulators today are so realistic as to be identical except for the "seat of the pants" you get in the real thing of a full motion sim. Some sims are actually harder to fly than the real thing�.

So, the answer is yes, it is not just possible, it is probable. (NOTE 1)

Me- 718955- I doubt it is as easy as spending time on a game, and would give favour to the odds of a remote control takeover as mentioned in my link, over flying 25 feet above ground and pulling off such a low approach at a speeding 350mph without slamming into the ground.

Your post 719213-

]Now, you are talking about "skimming the ground at 25 feet". Where, pray tell, are you getting that information? The trajectory of the final approach was most likely much steeper than that, and you have shown no evidence to suggest otherwise that I have seen. Do you think they flew the aircraft at 25ft AGL for a couple of miles before they hit? No, sorry, even a few thousand feet is out of the question as they would have hit something...a power line, light pole, another building. Not possible. Your theory is fatally flawed due to the fact that they could not have flown through solid objects. Even a power line would have brought the bird down.

Already provided:
Me 719398-
1)One individual claims he was standing outside when the plane�s wing almost hit him�

2)The light standards were hit, and at least one knocked over as the craft traveled across the roadway. Light standards are what 20-35 feet above ground? The craft would have been descending, by the time it crossed over the roadway and onto the field, it would have had to be even lower than the 35 feet to knock over the posts.

3) The bottom floor of the pentagon is not on stilts, the craft supposedly hit between the first and second floors, �

That means that the craft would have had to have entered the first floor with at least a generous 17 feet slicing into the second floor.

5) Post 733429 shows the security camera�s video of the incoming flight just as it passed in front of some sort of box like structure, which as you can from the clip is quite short compared to the building.

You 719524-

We fly low-level training missions here on a daily basis, C-130s, not a small aircraft. We never, repeat NEVER fly below 300 feet AGL (above ground level) except for ridge crossings, which can take us as low as 200 AGL for a brief moment. The rest of the visual routs are flown between 300 and 1000 feet AGL. We get DAILY complaints from people who say we are flying at "treetop level", that they were looking down at the top of our aircraft from their second story window, that we had a dust trail kicking up behind us, and that we took out their TV antenna with a wing tip.

Since there is no positive photographic evidence to prove the trajectory of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon that I have seen or that you have shown, I have to fall back on what I know about aircraft and aeronautics.

Me- 719729- Yes there is photographic evidence, as presented previously on this thread, and as provided by a security camera.

i.e.: The fact remains that the craft sheared those standards, knocked over at least one, and slammed into the first and second floors of the Pentagon, which had to have been at a maximum, 16 feet off the ground.

Now what is it exactly that you dispute about that? The Pentagon's records? I don't really think you want to go there considering the gist of this thread. but be my guest, if you insist.

You-

Are any of these true? No. They are ridiculous claims. Do the people THINK we are flying that low? Yes, because they have no concept of what flying really low means.

You 719025- Obfuscation? Not in the least, unless you simply don't understand what is being presented, which you are proving that you don't by your post.

The altitude issue was presented to show that people who witness things very often exaggerate what they see, whether consciously or unconsciously, i.e., "He was only ten feet off the ground!", when in reality he was most likely much higher.

I won't even address the sim response, as it was simply ridiculous and twisted as to be taken totally out of context.

What I dispute is your adamant ascertation that you KNOW the aircraft was "skimming the ground". You claim photographic proof, but have shown none...

Me- 721869- Yes you are obfuscating. Your entire argument is based on conjecture supported entirely by a computer game, to try and prove that the pilot could have flown a 757 into the Pentagon.

You-

What is the Runsfeld quote supposed to show? There is no question as to where the plane hit. Unfortunately, you continue to ignore the trajectory issue, but you show that you are simply clueless on what is being presented. You prove is shortly yourself...I'll get to that...

It is supposed to show exactly what it said. It is you who are ignoring the trajectory issue, I provided you with excerpts from Pentagon press briefings, directly from your DoD site, and have specifically referred you to a diagram that shows the defence�s rendering of the vertical trajectory on impact.. If that is ignoring the trajectory, then you must permit me some time to conjour up Hanjour via ouija board to have him sign an affidavit as to it being otherwise.

You-

So are you trying to say that the fire chief was saying that there WAS NO AIRCRAFT? Get real! You are picking and choosing what you post. The key in that statement is "visible". He couldn't see any "large sections". Why? Perhaps many reasons such as the fact that the building has collapsed on the wreckage and the aircraft was mostly disintegrated upon impact. This is the case with all those you quote talking about small pieces. Did you expect to have the plane break in two? You are grasping at straws with this one.

Is that what I said? Where? Or is that what you think I am saying. I am merely providing the progression of a briefing relative to the topic.

DoD slide show on the impact of the craft. www.defenselink.mil... Note the trajectory of the aircraft was upwards, not downwards. Slide 3 the title of the slide is, Illustration of Initial Impact.

Ok, I'm going to restrain myself here. When I first looked at the picture and what you wrote about the trajectory being "upwards", I had to go back and forth a few times...then I just started laughing so hard I almost cried.

Are you kidding me? "...the trajectory of the aircraft was upwards, not downwards..." Do you realize how stupid that is? And how utterly impossible? Is this a new kind of sub-terrainian aircraft?

Is that the best you can do? A convincing rebuttal it is not. What does the diagram tell you? What do the pictures show of the entry? It was the first floor. What was the statement about the craft entering through the first and second floors, and do you call Rumsfeld a liar?

Obviously then, if you feel it is impossible, then you are calling the DoD individuals I quoted liars, which goes exactly to my point that you are arguing against your own position. So what is it to be, that Rumsfeld, the senior officers, the engineers are all lying but you are correct that this pilot was some flunkie who managed to learn from Sim?

The picture you refer to only shows the horizontal trajectory, not the vertical. But hey, that was a really funny one.

If you continue to disagree with the low height impact to the building, the shearing off of the light standards, then you are effectively saying the Pentagon has been lying to us. Now I am open to finding the truth here. If in fact the craft did not knock down light standards, did not cause a man to duck, and did not fly into the bottom floor as we can plainly see, then I have to believe that we are being lied to by Government and military officials.

Again, you refuse to answer my questions as 1, you don't know the answers, and 2, the answers might not support your ridiculous claims. The eye witness phenomenon I have already discussed. There is positive proof that people often exaggerate what they see, especially under duress.

The way you start that is typical of someone who has gotten lost in translation, lost in his own obfuscation, and just generally lost. What questions have I not answered?

What are your credentials, that we are to believe your ridiculous assertion of SIM proficiency, while injecting your theorem that people exaggerate the height of C-130�s flying overhead at 300 feet, is likely why this construction crewman ducked just prior to this 757 barreling into the FIRST floor of the Pentagon?

How far was the witness standing from the building? How far are these "light standards" from the building? 10 feet? 20? 50? 100? How tall? 30 feet? 60? 80? It makes a HUGE difference, and to claim that because they were hit the trajectory was merely feet off the ground is ridiculous. Additionally, you failed to address the link I posted that shows the aircraft and describes it as "diving very quickly". Ignoring things that don't support your position, eh? Not surprising.

All of that information is there for you in the links that Cool Hand provided, as well as from the pictures provided by the DoD, and further my the accounts of the Pentagon officials. I cannot say I am surprised that you argue your case based on lack of knowledge if you have to ask those questions. Your case was lost 2 pages ago. Links, quotes and photos directly from your DoD has been provided to you. If you wish to continue disputing those, then you are calling these people liars.

If it did do all of that, then I have to believe that since you would prefer to argue that the altitude was a figment of imagination, you agree that an amateur pilot could not traverse just feet above the ground.

You would be wrong. You continue to attempt to twist things around to prove your inaccurate point, but unfortunately for your arguments, they are not supported by science or the incomplete evidence you pick and choose, and then present.

Am I?

(NOTE 1) You- Now, you are talking about "skimming the ground at 25 feet". Where, pray tell, are you getting that information? The trajectory of the final approach was most likely much steeper than that, and you have shown no evidence to suggest otherwise that I have seen. Do you think they flew the aircraft at 25ft AGL for a couple of miles before they hit? No, sorry, even a few thousand feet is out of the question as they would have hit something...a power line, light pole, another building. Not possible. Your theory is fatally flawed due to the fact that they could not have flown through solid objects. Even a power line would have brought the bird down.

Looks like you said it yourself. But in your haste to defend your indefensible position, you argued against yourself, as you have been from your second response to me.

Nice try, no cigar. And please, do not presume to say what I agree to or not, or to put words in my mouth. What I have posted is a matter of record, and your attempts to change that simply make you look rather foolish.

The most explicit confession to losing a debate an ego can muster next to becoming overly defensive, is yours above. You managed to do both in just a handful of posts to me.

I deny ignorance�

nor have I ever claimed to know everything about 9/11. However, if you look at the subjects I have posted on, they are subjects that I know well due to experience and education�

I will present the correct information for the less learned to gain knowledge of�

I simply pass on correct information where others make mistakes, misrepresentations, or outright lie.

Do you really? And I hope to see all of that come to fruition. Until then, the final word on this thread, is yours.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by Croker
Seriously - what red-blooded American man would let some stupid hijacker take control for fear of getting stuck with a box cutter ?

Seriously, you may want to do some research into the pilot of that plane.

His autopsy determined that he was killed with one of those box cutters after attempting to fight off the terrorists.

Who, by the way, provided the details regarding this particular fellow's autopsy? It wouldn't be anything or anyone related to the government now would it?

And by the way, could they tell from the autopsy that "he was killed with one of those box cutters after attempting to fight off terrorists"?
Just curious.

Isn't it safe to say that there is no conclusive proof to either theory. It is like proving that love or hate exists. I'm not taking either side, it just gets boring listening to these debates. At first, everyone provided very sound arguments. Now, it seems that it has reverted to a fifth grade "you stink" argument.

Can't we all just get along?

Originally posted by ghost

Originally posted by mrmulder
You know, there's a big difference between shooting a plane down and intercepting it. That's all I'm going to say.

Very true! During the Cold War, the USAF would routinly intercept Russian TU-95 strategic bombers over the Bering Straight and shadow them untill they returned to Russian airspace without ever fireing a shot. They took photos on these missions. During peacetimes it is very rare to shoot at an intercepted aircraft, If any force is used it is usually in the form of forcing the plane to land and then detaining passengers and crew unharmed.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Remeber when the Soviets shot down a Japanese 747 that had crossed to close to restriceted Soviet Airspace. It was during the Regan era.