|
Post by twinstead on May 24, 2006 5:31:36 GMT -4
BTW, I'll note this again here. Today a message from OBL was posted to the net in which he rails against the US holding innocent muslimms over 9/11 and he calls Massoui a fraud who had nothing to do with the operation, that it was just the 19 people he sent to do it. I guess those with "open minds" will all either ignore this or claim it has been faked though and just carry on their merry way. This is what is so odd about the CTs. If, like they say, OBL is fake or a CIA member, he would have come on tape praising Massoui for his service to the 'cause', thus strengthening the government's claim of Massoui's role. If OBL is real, but he didn't plan the attacks at all, he would have denied involvement and blamed the US for killing its own people. In fact one would think he would have done that from the get go. What a PR coup that would be! IMO the only thing that makes sense is that OBL is the real deal, and planned the attacks as advertised. Either Massoui really wasn't involved, or OBL is trying to make it seem like he wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 24, 2006 11:39:28 GMT -4
[Also: The eyewitness accounts of the pentagon hit are mostly inconsistent: some saw a commercial jet, some a small private jet, another saw a helicopter. How is this assertion more consistent with your hypothesis that the Pentagon was struck by a cruise missile rather than a jetliner?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on May 24, 2006 13:03:33 GMT -4
[Also: The eyewitness accounts of the pentagon hit are mostly inconsistent: some saw a commercial jet, some a small private jet, another saw a helicopter. How is this assertion more consistent with your hypothesis that the Pentagon was struck by a cruise missile rather than a jetliner? As a matter of fact did any eye witness say he saw a cuise missile? I've looked. A couple said that the plane they saw looked like a missile (Mike Walter and Dan Creed) , but I can't find any eye witness account that specifically states they saw a missile hit the Pentagon. I'd like to see them if there are. Quite odd if indeed it is as the CTs say the most plausible explanation.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 24, 2006 13:45:42 GMT -4
It just doesn't make sense... if the government wanted us to believe that a plane hit the Pentagon, why not just fly a plane into the Pentagon? Why would they go to all the trouble of planting fake witnesses, and creating fake videos, hijacking a plane and then hiding it, etc. if they could just do it for real? Why do CT's create such elaborate theories to explain simple things?
And if it was a bomb why not just blame it on al-Qaida?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on May 24, 2006 15:38:49 GMT -4
It just doesn't make sense... if the government wanted us to believe that a plane hit the Pentagon, why not just fly a plane into the Pentagon? Why would they go to all the trouble of planting fake witnesses, and creating fake videos, hijacking a plane and then hiding it, etc. if they could just do it for real? Why to CT's create such elaborate theories to explain simple things?
That's the thing. Not only is the alleged evidence against the 757 hitting the Pentagon based at the very best on lack of understanding of how things work (and at the most common level based on deceipt and FUD), the reasons for the purported hoax make no sense whatsoever, even if you accept the most evil of seekrit gubmint plots.
Moreover, the gubmint can fake all this stuff, fool people into "seeing" a 757 strike, can make a planeload of passengers (not to mention the plane itself) disappear, but can't fake a clearer surveillance videotape?
In what kind of bizarro world is this somehow believable?
I don't much get into armchair psychology. But you have to be nuts to believe the gov't faked flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on May 24, 2006 15:52:47 GMT -4
Are you planning to acknowledge the previous rebuttal of your changes, or are you just going to ignore them? Well, I notice you all conveniently ignored the quote from pilot Russ Wittenburg about the maneuver being impossible for a 757. The maneuver (330 degree turn at 530 MPH, followed by a descent of 7000 feet in 2.5 minutes) is impossible in that type of plane, according to an experienced pilot. That's all the proof we need that the Pentagon wasn't hit by that plane. Exactly what it was hit with is still open for debate. Why didn't the government terrorists use a 757? Because it would have been a lot easier to use a stealthy military-based delivery system and then say it was a 757 to pin it on the alleged hijackers.
|
|
|
Post by Fnord Fred on May 24, 2006 16:23:40 GMT -4
Except that if it was a cruise missile, it wouldn't look like an airplane, and it wouldn't impact the building like an airplane leaving damage where the strongest points of the wings were.
If it was really impossible to fly a 757 like that, then they would have changed the flight plan. After all, if they figured out how to make a 757 and it's passenger load disappear, surely they'd have some experts on hand to tell them how a 757 would/could manuever.
I can't say for sure OBL was behind the attacks - sure, I suppose it could have been shady hoax perpetrators flying via remote control, and maybe Osama was manufactured in order to pin it on somebody. But from everything I've seen and read here and elsewhere, the only logical conclusion as to what hit the Pentagon is a Boeing 757.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on May 24, 2006 16:26:34 GMT -4
What about the hundreds of pilots that have said it was not impossible but rather it was not safe and pointed more toward an inexperienced pilot, overcorrecting his mistakes and unconcerned about the safety of the plane or passengers? Why should we believe the one pilot that happens to say something that fits your predetermined conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by phunk on May 24, 2006 16:38:42 GMT -4
So one pilot (a known conspiracy theorist) claims it would be impossible. Why have none of the other thousands of pilots who have flown these planes come forward?
330 degrees at 530mph is meaningless without a radius for that turn. Also, at 530mph, 7000 feet in 2.5 minutes is similar to a normal descent angle, only 3.5 degrees.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 24, 2006 16:48:28 GMT -4
It just doesn't make sense... if the government wanted us to believe that a plane hit the Pentagon, why not just fly a plane into the Pentagon? The only thing that makes sense about the argument that the 757 didn’t crash into the Pentagon is that those that put this forward have a need to believe that the government is lying about it. They just must show that the government will lie about anything, no mater how outrageous the lie.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on May 24, 2006 17:32:44 GMT -4
What about the hundreds of pilots that have said it was not impossible but rather it was not safe and pointed more toward an inexperienced pilot, overcorrecting his mistakes and unconcerned about the safety of the plane or passengers? Why should we believe the one pilot that happens to say something that fits your predetermined conclusion? Because in conspiracy world all it takes is one rogue person to disagree with dozens, hundreds, thousands of folks every bit as qualified, then all the other evidence is thrown out the window; their case to them is proved.
|
|
|
Post by brotherofthemoon on May 24, 2006 19:22:42 GMT -4
Are you planning to acknowledge the previous rebuttal of your changes, or are you just going to ignore them? Well, I notice you all conveniently ignored the quote from pilot Russ Wittenburg about the maneuver being impossible for a 757. The maneuver (330 degree turn at 530 MPH, followed by a descent of 7000 feet in 2.5 minutes) is impossible in that type of plane, according to an experienced pilot. That's all the proof we need that the Pentagon wasn't hit by that plane. Exactly what it was hit with is still open for debate. Why didn't the government terrorists use a 757? Because it would have been a lot easier to use a stealthy military-based delivery system and then say it was a 757 to pin it on the alleged hijackers. Well, in that case, a gigantic aluminum Alien Space Bat crashed into the Pentagon.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 24, 2006 19:48:31 GMT -4
Why didn't the government terrorists use a 757? Because it would have been a lot easier to use a stealthy military-based delivery system and then say it was a 757 to pin it on the alleged hijackers. How can using anything but a 757 be easier? I'll repeat: if they wanted people to believe a 757 hit the Pentagon then the easiest thing they could have done is use a 757. Anything else just doesn't make sense. It's like you are trying to build a Ford out of Toyota parts... isn't is easier to just use existing Ford parts? Why would they need to use something stealthy when they obviously would have wanted it to be seen?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on May 24, 2006 20:13:20 GMT -4
Off topic, but I used to have a Toyota made out of GM parts. ;D If anybody remembers the mid 80s Corolla, it shared many parts with the Chevy Nova.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on May 24, 2006 23:44:39 GMT -4
How can using anything but a 757 be easier? I'll repeat: if they wanted people to believe a 757 hit the Pentagon then the easiest thing they could have done is use a 757. Anything else just doesn't make sense. It's like you are trying to build a Ford out of Toyota parts... isn't is easier to just use existing Ford parts? Why would they need to use something stealthy when they obviously would have wanted it to be seen? Because hitting the side of a low building, especially without touching the ground, is not an easy feat in a lumbering 757 travelling at 530mph. It's much easier to control a missile. They were more concerned about getting the job done as accurately as possible, not in it being seen. (Remember the hijackers were thoughtful enough to hit the side of the Pentagon that had just finished getting reinforced.) It's much easier to manipulate perceptions and recollections after the event. Loose Change mentions a woman, April Gallop, who was in the Pentagon's west side when it was hit. She says she never saw a plane or debris from a plane. She was visited while in the hospital by unidentified men in business suits who told her to take the compensation money and shut up. They also kept suggesting to her over and over that a plane had hit the building. Highly suspicious.
|
|