Printable View
True to form... confirms my observations.
The clan of ultra conspiracy, no rabbit hole is ever deep enough, immediately believe the ultra conspiracy angle first, then maybe try to figure it out later as long as it still a deep conspiracy, and maintains the comfort zone.
What of the dancing Islamic Israeli's armed with boxcutters taking control of four jetliners, previously planting thermite in undisclosed locations throughout new york?Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
Shouldn't a nuclear sub takeover been more "easier" to coordinate?
Facts are facts, jetliners can not fly the course, and the target could only be guaranteed with a missile. The Pentagon's accounting office was the main target that day.
Lots of things would have been easier, but pressing a button on an airplane to roll out a host of new security protocols all over the place was the plan. They even got rid of some construction costs at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
They had them all up in the air at their disposal, and they used them. This much is 100% proven and widely acknowledged. Funny thing is some still deny even that.
Press a button, Done. That's exactly what they did, so why change one part of the plan when it wasn't even necessary?
To make it out as though they were invisible running around all over the place undetected during rush hour, planting hamburger chunks of people, and fake debris...it's so far out there if falls over the edge.
Because it is an impossible flight path, with near -0% success rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
How many times has this been repeated yet you refuse to comprehend,
and go on to discredit others statements who you don't even know through slanderous verbiage.
So where did the plane go, and how did all the passengers turn up as hamburger in the building?Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
I haven't heard anyone try to explain that part yet.
Some said it flew on by, were you in the building making patties that day?Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
Would it have been more appropriate for the 2.3T missing to turn up missing the day after the "attacks"?
And a bunch of people said it hit the building like the flight recorder shows. So if the flight recorder data is all fake, then how is the flight path impossible if all the data is a fabrication? Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
So what about passengers?
So they flew past it, and landed the plane where?...then hauled everyone off, convincingly ground them up at a level to bear forensic analysis, then drove it all back at warp speed, and scattered it everywhere with all that commotion going on without anyone noticing anything? In a burning building mind you.
Who in their right mind would even consider that as a legitimate course of action, and hope to get away with it...even if they did have some kind of mass memory erasing device?
See what I mean?
Haven't you thought about this yourself already when considering everything?
Its been explained a number of times that many people died that day.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
Even Pat Colo has explained how 11 Saud's DNA was matched up through improper process of elimination.
All other evidence is inconsequential to the impossible flight path and subject to tampering.
Just as it is impossible for modern steel buildings to fall many hours after impact straight onto their footprint from residual fires.
Go through the logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
If the flight recorder shows the plane stopped there, but it didn't, then the flight recorder data is a fabrication. There is no impossible flight path data that you should be believing, it's all fabricated.
This is what I was talking about earlier with cherry picking information.
So what's up with the passengers then. Were they ever on the plane to begin with? Was it empty?
Did they fly an empty plane right over top? What would be the purpose of doing that?
Then you have all these alive people rounded up somewhere, and you have to make it look like they were in a 500mph collision at a forensic level, and get them onsite undetected.
Does that make any sense as a legitimate plan over simply pressing a button?
Yes, because it is illogical to conclude that you could achieve the high priority target with a Boeing 757.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
Stopped at 460ft above sea level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uPN3XNTdv8
Dude, you're missing the most fundamental concept here. This is what kills me with this whole missile angle, and people still refuse to think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
What happened to the plane?? Where did it go?
The flight recorder data shows the plane stopped there...but you're saying it flew away somewhere else.
Ok, well... then flight data is fake.
The flight recorder data is total BS if that's what happened.
Full stop.
Why do you keep using it like it's the truth, it's if it's not, according to your own logic?
You keep tripping up on the most fundamental logistical concept here over, and over again.
Now you're practicing your jewjitsu witchcraft again, Obiwan.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
The only truth you need is a Boeing turning to zero pitch from 15degrees within the space of its own wingspan.
Unfortunately that truth can only be created in your fantasy, as it is impossible in our real world.
It has nothing to do with anything but pure common sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
The flight data shows the plane stopped there, but you're saying it didn't because it's impossible...it flew right over top away somewhere else.
Ok, then the flight data has to fabricated. It's a lie then. This is what you yourself are saying with your own words.
So if it's a lie, then why are you cherry picking parts of a lie, and claiming it to be the truth?
You were presenting the flight data recorder as truth. I defeated the notion of it as a truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
The only truth is the front sloped face from the pentagon hole to the highway bridge.
No other truths are needed to present the impossible flight path.
You just posted a video above saying that "crash impossible says flight recorder data"Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
Where did you defeat the flight path recorder data as a notion? You were using it specifically.
Anyhow, when the reality of that logistically becomes inconvenient, the whole thing is still impossible because the angle of the crash makes it "appear" to be impossible?
You're going to have to elaborate on that.
How did the passengers get in the building, and when?
The angle doesn't make anything appear, it is what it is, and makes it impossible for a Boeing 757.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
There's nothing further to elaborate on as far as the question of the thread is concerned, flight recorder, or not.
Show how it's impossible then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2010/0911-Pentagon.htmlQuote:
Flight 77 would then have been over Pentagon grounds with about 500 feet remaining to level out and to strike the Pentagon "slightly below the second floor slab" at "an angle of approximately 42 degrees".
The Columbia Pike and VA-27 intersection, and the terrain West of the intersection, present a barrier in the alleged path of Flight 77.
According to the "Pentagon Building Performance Report" (page 14), "The first photograph (figure 3.3) captured an image of the aircraft when it was approximately 320 ft (approximately 0.42 second) from impact with the west wall of the Pentagon. Two photographs (figures 3.3 and 3.7), when compared, seem to show that the top of the fuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground when the first photograph of this series was taken."
Leaving aside the discrepancies between the official account of Flight 77, and the Flight Data Recorder (which NTSB refuses to answer), Pilots for 9/11 Truth calculated the force on the Boeing 757 at 34 Gs, i.e. 34 times the force due to gravity, at the point that it would have to transition from its downward flight to level flight.
With a virtual weight of about 8.5 million pounds, Flight 77 could not have leveled off before striking the Pentagon. It would have crashed at the intersection of Columbia Pike and VA-27. This alone is sufficient to refute the official account of "Flight 77" -- Flight 77 cannot have violated the law of s .
They're using the flight path data which also shows the plane stopped there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
So where did the plane go?
Where is it?
The flight data says the plane stopped there.
Did it land on top of the building, on a dime from 500mph, then enable it's cloaking device, and sit there long enough for them to somehow remove the flight data recorder, then smash it up all convincingly, and toss it in the building then fire off the missile, and recover the data recorder later?
Is this what you're expecting people to believe happened?
...and were not even touching on how the people got in there yet.
Play out the logic. You're either going to use the flight data as being true, or it's a fabrication.
Pick an angle and stick with it.
You're still trying to have it both ways.
There's obviously a huge glaring problem with the flight recorder data, because there's no plane there.
Surely you realize this by now.
Show the evidence that says it's completely impossible without using the flight recorder data.
You have dyslexia.
Any and all flight patterns over the bridge or through the woods apply to the laws of science.Quote:
Leaving aside the discrepancies between the official account of Flight 77, and the Flight Data Recorder (which NTSB refuses to answer),
A Boeing is not capable to produce the hole in the side of the building after traversing the rise of the highway, as was evident by the hole in the wall, and the rise to the highway.
One one hand your saying the flight recorder data is all fake (because no plane stopped there at the pentagon), then on the other hand you're using the fight recorder data as proof to indicate the flight path was impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
You don't see the problem with that?
So basically your entire argument boils down to your opinion of what you think is possible, and not possible.
Nobody is using the flight recorder data, only the evidence that is available on site.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
That being the hole in the wall, and the rise of the bridge. And the speeds needed to produce Boeing evaporation.
Do you have a problem with understanding that?
The math stands on its own, only a completely zombified audience would buy that a Boeing had even a slight chance.
Which is what they were hoping for, then it was onto Iraq for the real live bunker busters, over & out.
Now you're switching to the hole (which is also an opinion) away from the flight path.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
If you're going to make the claim, then you need to show *without using any of the flight recorder data* how the flight path was impossible.
Quote:
The flight data says the plane stopped there.
See, this what I mean by saying you don't use logic in your arguments. You use the flight data to bolster your point, while there is no possible way of verifying the data.... then you accuse Horn of using it, when he clearly did no such thing.Quote:
One one hand your saying the flight recorder data is all fake (because no plane stopped there at the pentagon), then on the other hand you're using the fight recorder data as proof to indicate the flight path was impossible.
Horn is using evidence that's actually available. He didn't use the flight recorder to make a point. You did.
Horn keeps making the point that the flight recorder data shows the flight path is impossible, from various sources, and deduces therefore it's impossible for the plane to have hit the building (based on the flight path data), so he then says the plane flew then over top due to the altitude reading gathered again, from the flight path data, therefore it had to be a missile. It's not just horn that does this. It's what the missile theory perspective believes as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa
Now that this logic no longer pans out, it all relies on the opinion that it simply could not fly it, and then off to another opinion of that the hole is not right.
And then there's the passengers to account for still.
Are you reading a different thread?
Not so at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
The following linked calculation weighs so heavily in favor towards pre-wall & non-level impact that variables as far as speed concerned within it could be reduced by a significant factor and still place the Boeing well in front of the evident impact zone.
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2009/0702-Flight77.htmlQuote:
Pilots for 9/11 Truth did another calculation by lowering the height of "Flight 77" below that shown by the FDR. They lowered it to to the top of the Virginia Department of Transportation communications antenna that sits below the alleged flight path.
With this very conservative case, they calculated the force on the Boeing 757 at 11.2 Gs. "11.2 Gs was never recorded in the FDR. 11.2 Gs would rip the aircraft apart" they state.
With any other lower flight path being impossible due to obstructions that would have taken the Boeing out before the intended target, the case is closed.
No High Speed & Evaporating Boeing made the hole in the Pentagon wall. It's an impossibility.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PtlzCyKbw5Q
No, he's saying, "IF" the flight data as given were accurate, the 757 would have crashed before leveling and careening into the building simply due to the G forces involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
Which means that the flight data as given is complete bullshit.
This lends no credibility at all to your position that the jet had to have hit the building.
And as far as PatColo's position goes, he knows that the OFFICIAL STORYTELLERS need fight 77 to have hit the Pentagon, otherwise the entire OFFICIAL STORY goes to shit.
Furthermore, 2 videos have been shown that clearly demonstrate that a missile hit the building, and not one video of a 757 hitting the building.
Also, your buddy, whatsisname has admitted that he may have been wrong about his initial opinion that a missile didn't hit the building.
So you have clearly lost this debate, yet you continue going on and on. Give it up, joboo.
Thank you - well said. Finally, the voice of reason may put this miserable display of mendacity and duplicity out of it's misery once and for all. For anyone who has seen the video showing a wingless missile hitting the Pentagon the debate is over. Yet Joboo spends hours debating minutias, as if the events of the past can be changed by lies and distortions today. What disreputable conduct by a true misanthrope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa
Give this a read, open it in internet explorer if it doesn't display properly. All the pictures are interactive with check boxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
http://jpdesm.pagesperso-orange.fr/p.../trj-appr.html
Computer simulations are great, but they don't always mimic the real world environment at the time. At the end of the day it's still a computer simulation.
There are witnesses all along the flight path that saw the airplane. Do you think they are all in on it?
The employee working in the VDOT tower says it went over.
So if the plane just flew on by, can you speculate on how you think they arranged to get the passengers DNA inside the building, and when?
The simulation is only to provide a basis for mathematical figures.
The math does not lie, no Boeing made that hole in the Pentagon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa
You're basing a computer simulation on the real world. Everyone knows that computer simulations are just that. Computer simulations.
There are no two videos that show a missile. One is completely inconclusive, and the other is some kind of poor CGI hoax.
Gage, when pressed, admitted it may have been a missile, but that was to calm the waters, as there was a shitstorm of fury against him for not fully supporting it. I am sure his mailbox was getting bombarded daily over it to no end. Ultimately look at how he has decided to distance himself from it with his work. Actions speak louder than words.
All there is at this point is a computer simulation v.s. real world environment.
It's still a computer simulation. You're trusting they took every possibility into account, and weren't looking for a specific result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
So if the plane few over top, when did the missile hit, and what about the passengers? How do you suppose they arranged all that?
It a model to determine the radius, thats all. There are no other calculations going on in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
Have you ever used a compass, or does your friend own one on his shirt?
Well the simulation is showing one thing, then you have witnesses all along the flight path saying the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
So the lynch pin is a computer simulation that or may or may not have accounted for everything going on that day at that specific location in time.
Did they think of every possible scenario that could affect their calculations, and plot a parallel simulation to see what the result was in each case? It's a question worth asking.
Simulations? What are you talkin about? The debate is OVER. You lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
The end. Even your hero gave up. He admitted he was wrong. Now it's time for you to do the same thing.Quote:
Gage, when pressed, admitted it may have been a missile.
Not sure at all what your are trying to state there.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
Any flight path you approach it with the math would not lie,
a Boeing could not have leveled out before the Pentagon wall and after the highway at anything close to speeds required, impossible.
Try to defeat the math involved, it oughtta be an interesting addition to your pro-space junk mentality.
At the end of the day your entire argument relies on a computer simulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
Have you thought about the getting the passengers arranged, and situated yet with a timeline?
How does that work out for you?
What are your thoughts on this?
http://jpdesm.pagesperso-orange.fr/p.../trj-appr.html
Then there's this:
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...videncesummary
Pentagon witness spreadsheet (Excel file)
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...tWitnesses.xls
"From the lists above, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and
104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.
26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.
39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.
7 said it was a Boeing 757.
8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.
15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.
3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.
3 took photographs of the aftermath.
Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."
And of course,
0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.
0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away."
------------------------
All of them are in on it, and lying?
Again, it isn't a computer simulation. It is a too scale 3d model to figure out the approach vector and radius slope/sine for the calculations that prove without a doubt that no Boeing 747 could traverse the Pentagon fairway to be perpendicular to the wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
The computer is doing nothing there, its straight math/science, No eyeball in the world could prove it any different.
Hey, I know that song.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo