High Ranking US Major General Exposes September 11 High

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

The simulation is only to provide a basis for mathematical figures.

The math does not lie, no Boeing made that hole in the Pentagon.

---

It's still a computer simulation. You're trusting they took every possibility into account, and weren't looking for a specific result.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joboo

It's still a computer simulation. You're trusting they took every possibility into account, and weren't looking for a specific result.

---

It a model to determine the radius, thats all. There are no other calculations going on in it.

Have you ever used a compass, or does your friend own one on his shirt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

It a model to determine the radius, thats all. There are no other calculations going on in it.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joboo

You're basing a computer simulation on the real world. Everyone knows that computer simulations are just that. Computer simulations.

---

Simulations? What are you talkin about? The debate is OVER. You lost.

Quote:

---

Gage, when pressed, admitted it may have been a missile.

---

The end. Even your hero gave up. He admitted he was wrong. Now it's time for you to do the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joboo

Well the simulation is showing one thing, then you have witnesses all along the flight path saying the opposite

---

Not sure at all what your are trying to state there.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

Not sure at all what your are trying to state there.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joboo

At the end of the day your entire argument relies on a computer simulation.

---

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.

The computer is doing nothing there, its straight math/science, No eyeball in the world could prove it any different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joboo

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."

And a partridge in a pear tree.

---

Hey, I know that song.