Can I convince PF's resident 'Truthers' that AA77 hit the Pentagon? - Take Two

How can anybody think that the evil perps of this massive conspiracy, with unlimited power, money, and capability, would decide that the best way to fake an airliner crash into the Pentagon, was not to crash an airliner into the Pentagon..

No planers will never understand.

But do feel free to visit the page anyway;

http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/

 

Maybe you shouldn't attempt using 8th grade science on something much more complex. The Purdue University study is very detailed and available online. You can start there.

 

While we are drawing attention to this subject,
can we explore just a bit about how it is totally implausible that anybody
intent on using a commercial airliner as a weapon would operate the aircraft
in the manner that was alleged to have happened?
Think about this if you will, the events of 9/11/2001 had to have been planned for
be that planning in a cave in the middle east or some cushy office someplace in
the industrialized world, it had to have been planned. Now with that established,
lets look at the risk taking involved, there is the hijackings, if say on board one of
the aircraft there was a Marine fresh out of boot-camp, or a TaiQuanDo fighter
or for that matter simply a John J. Gettodweller sort of street fighter type,
and the moment things really started getting nasty, one or more passengers fought back,
could ruin the hijackers day ( no 42 virgins, the deity was not pleased.... ) the other feature
of this is in the operation of the aircraft, it is an uncertainty ( because its never been tried before )
to have an inexperienced "pilot" navigate an airliner from some arbitrary location to say Manhattan or the PENTAGON. The additional fly in the ointment is the fact that it is alleged that the hijackers flew the aircraft over-speed for the design of said aircraft, this also is problematic because the chances of there being unforseen consequences to this sort of thing, that is the aircraft may prove to be impossible to control at that speed, the aircraft may be damaged by operating it outside of its normal parameters. Therefore, it is at least IMHO, the planners of the events of 9/11/2001 would NOT have used hijacked airliners as weapons.

The alleged airliner hijackings were simply a made for TV drama, nothing more.

May I also add, that in all 4 cases of alleged hijacking, the pilots & co-pilots of the airliners,
did NOT set the transponder code to the "WE B HIJACKED" mode. WHY?

 

Really, why?

Your comment is moot because WE know what happened. The hijackers told the pilots and passengers they had explosives...all that anyone knew, other than Flight 93, was this was a hijacking. Some passengers were killed by the hijackers prior to the crashes.

Another bogus claim. The hijackers WERE trained pilots. The fact that they didn't have lots of experience is moot. They were not going to land these planes...they were going to crash them....BIG DIFFERENCE. Another fake claim is the "operating it outside of it's normal parameters"...and just what were those "normal parameters"? Those planes were physically and functionally capable of doing what we all saw them do.

Yet again, another ignorant assertion.

Oh, I don't know...maybe the gun stuck to the back of their heads?

 

"gun to the back of their heads" where did the GUN come from, allegedly the hijackers were armed with box cutters, and the very moment that the hijackers started physically attacking passengers, there is the distinct possibility that other passengers & crew members would be doing anything they could to neutralize the threat, that is if necessary, KILL the hijackers. a pre-emptive strike at the cockpit to make sure the pilot didn't set the transponder code to the "WE B HIJACKED" code, is not in the script.

Note that the "trained pilots" did NOT have any recorded flight time in a Boeing 757
and as such lacked the hands on experience of how the controls behave, they would
first have to feel out the bird and then control it well enough to reach their target and
crash into the target properly, if the aircraft were to strike the wall of any target at too
shallow an angle, it would simply bounce off. a 50 cal supersonic projectile will bounce
off the surface of a pond if the angle is that shallow, the Pentagon hit is highly suspicious
because of the angle of the hit, and the lack of aircraft bits on the Pentagon lawn.

 

Oh lord....another graduate of the wile e coyote school of engineering.

 

The stupid in his post is overwhelming..

 

"Stupid". How very....unusual. Heavy on insults, and lite on discussion. That's how it's handled "officially" STILL., and you'd think they could have evolved in some fashion. Not in the cards though.

 

NoSpam is declaring that no planes were hijacked and that all the events were staged.

I find that idea stupid. Naturally, you support him.

 

meep!...meep!

 

More the pointing out that ridicule is your team's most commonly used tool, and specificity is the very last thing the team wants discussed.

- - - Updated - - -

For example. ^^^^^^^^^^

 

Specifically what do you agree with in NoSpam's no-planes theory?

 

Remember...an honest discussion can only be had when both sides engage in honesty....so, being 'in between flights' interferes with that possibility. I though we covered that?

 

So, because you're in-between flights you can't explain why you support NoSpams stance on no-planes?

Dodge noted.

 

Yeah...you got it, honest Abe.

 

Thought so.

 

RtWngaFruad .....I have watched a lot of things on 9/11 and it seems people have an explanation for every discrepancy. every time I ask how an air liner with about a150 ft wing span only left about a 40ft hole in the pentagon. They usually say, the wings disintegrated.If that was the case how come the windows on either side of the initial hole weren't even broken.

 

Actually, we know that one of the wings broke off even before impact as it stuck the ground just prior. And anybody familiar with aircraft design (my undergraduate degree is in aerospace engineering) would be shocked by a larger initial hole in what we all know to have been a specially reinforced building of the Pentagon's revised design. But that is actually neither here nor there.

I'm curious as to where you got the idea that there were no broken windows on either side of the initial hole? This photo (for example) is from pre-collapse.



So is this one:

 

the facade of the pentagon DID show marks from the wings,and the windows were blast resistant and with all the trappings,cost 10,000 apiece,and even then,a lot WERE broken.

 

Is that the initial impact spot I don't see the hole.

 

Look at the hole before the roof collapses ,there's no impact marks at all on the building were the wings would have hit. The no parking sign is still there with no damage Paleeezeee!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRPWLqc5T20

 

There are no discrepancies.

Of course they did. They left some nice clear imprints for over a hundred feet outboard of the engine mounts on both sides. A bunch of silly twoofs bought the Nazi stories about the missing prints because they were thinking that they should have been parallel to the ground on both sides.

Because the wings did not touch them, and they had been coated with an anti-fragmentation compound tougher than an automobile windshield as a precaution against truck bombs.

Now how about you people coming up with some non-unicorn-poo-powered device that could possibly do the same damage.

 

According to the truther website from which I got the pictures, that is the impact spot. The hole is hidden by the smoke/steam from the firefighting.

 

The hole is to the right of the fire truck. You are looking at the left wing imprint.

 

And again... anyone familiar with aircraft design would not expect what you expect.