High Ranking US Major General Exposes September 11 High

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

You have dyslexia.



Any and all flight patterns over the bridge or through the woods apply to the laws of science.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joboo

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.

---

Nobody is using the flight recorder data, only the evidence that is available on site.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

Nobody is using the flight recorder data, only the evidence that is available on site.

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?

---

Now you're switching to the hole (which is also an opinion) away from the flight path.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

Horn is using evidence that's actually available. He didn't use the flight recorder to make a point. You did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joboo

Horn keeps making the point that the flight recorder data shows the flight path is impossible,

---

Not so at all.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2009/0702-Flight77.html

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...;v=PtlzCyKbw5Q

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joboo

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.

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?

---

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.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa

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.
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 Horn

Not so at all.

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.html

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

---

Give this a read, open it in internet explorer if it doesn't display properly. All the pictures are interactive with check boxes.

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.