|
Pentagon hit by a missile? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Boy.. did i push some buttons or what!
I posted this to get an opinion...i dont necessarily believe that a misiile hit the building althought i could understand why people would be suspiscious.
However I will not beleive that an arab terrorist with 6 months training on a one engine plane flew that plane right at its target on the very first try on a commercial airliner. Not only that, the Pentagon is not high enough for a beginner pilot to fly directly into.. and seeeing that the plane crashed into the side of the building, it is obviously apparant that someone or something knew how to fly that thing very well. |
I believe from several reports the primary target was the White House.
The pilot overshot it and hit the pentagon as the secondary target.
The 4th plane crashed in a field..... passengers thwarted the terrorist's efforts. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by Radagast
Have you ever actually flown a plane? |
Have you ever flown a commercial airliner? Im sure with a flight similuator... youd be just as perfect as those terrorists.
Only idiots would beleive the that was barfed out by the government the week after 9/11 |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Have you ever flown a commercial airliner? Im sure with a flight similuator... youd be just as perfect as those terrorists.
Only idiots would beleive the that was barfed out by the government the week after 9/11 |
Dude this post/video has been refuted already...
You're still with that nonsense....WOW...complete moron |
|
|
| occrider |
| Well I'll offer my own observed opinion since I live in the area. I drive by the Pentagon every day on my way to work ... trust me, being the largest office building in the US it wouldn't be hard to hit ... even in an airplane ;). The simple fact of the matter is that there's nothing else that noticeably obstructs its path. It's huge, and it juts up above the highway I-395, that goes by it. Plus pictures of the the gaping hole don't do it justice. If you had seen it in person in comparison to the size of the building as a whole, it's no stretch of the imagination that a commercial airline hit it. That's just my own subjective opinion ... of course all the engineering analysis in the world backs my subjective opinion up, but I guess you believe what you want to believe. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| OCC.. im just looking at it in respect to HOW the plane was flown in.. If it hit the side of the building, their needs to be a sophisticated pilot to maneouver the plane at a hieght low enough to hit the side... thats all im saying. |
|
|
| GeneraLeePissed |
| I'm having a hard time swallowing this whole thing. It is a slap in the face to families that had loved ones die on that day. Then again the whole time I watched i kept thinking..."back and to the left" some kind of scam? I'm sure that agent Mulder and Scully were on the scene to disect the evidence. I heard they had the clues shipped to Las Vegas for a C.S.I. crime evaluation. Right now as I write this the mystery machine and its band of "snooty kids" are on there way to investigate some new clues that may crack the case. I wanna be there when they pull Bushs' mask off and we get to see who it is. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
OCC.. im just looking at it in respect to HOW the plane was flown in.. If it hit the side of the building, their needs to be a sophisticated pilot to maneouver the plane at a hieght low enough to hit the side... thats all im saying. |
Yes and the pilot demonstrated his lack of flying ability by smacking into the ground and slowing down to 250 knots before he hit the pentagon. Even if the hijacker had made a million to one shot bullseye of hitting the pentagon without the plane hitting the ground, there's simply no credible evidence or even rationale to support such a theory, reasonably or LOGICALLY. Not only do we have those eyewitness accounts, but we have accounts from people on board the plane THEMSELVES, who made cell phone calls before the crash:
| quote: |
One of the 266 passengers on the four jets was Barbara Olson, wife of senior Justice Department official Theodore Olson.
She called her husband moments before American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon in Washington.
Mrs Olson is reported to have told her husband the attackers used knife-like instruments to overpower the flight crew.
'We're going down'
She is reported to have said "Can you believe this, we are being hijacked" before the cell phone went dead.
Mr Olson confirmed his wife made the calls before dying with the 63 other people on board.
Calls were made moments before impact
"She called from the plane while it was being hijacked. I wish it wasn't so but it is," he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1539193.stm
|
Furthermore, the conspiracy theory argues itself on the merits of doubt (how typical) as opposed to a theory that argues itself on the merits of supporting evidence. Sorry hypothetical, unexpert conjecture does not constitute as evidence. You might as well adopt a religion ... the traits of blind faith are the same. |
|
|
| Radagast |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Have you ever flown a commercial airliner? Im sure with a flight similuator... youd be just as perfect as those terrorists.
Only idiots would beleive the that was barfed out by the government the week after 9/11 |
I haven't flown a commercial airliner any more than you have, friend. Only idiots would make stupid suppositions as to how an airplane flies without ever either having flown one or maybe studied aviation for quite a time. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Yes and the pilot demonstrated his lack of flying ability by smacking into the ground and slowing down to 250 knots before he hit the pentagon. Even if the hijacker had made a million to one shot bullseye of hitting the pentagon without the plane hitting the ground, there's simply no credible evidence or even rationale to support such a theory, reasonably or LOGICALLY. Not only do we have those eyewitness accounts, but we have accounts from people on board the plane THEMSELVES, who made cell phone calls before the crash:
Furthermore, the conspiracy theory argues itself on the merits of doubt (how typical) as opposed to a theory that argues itself on the merits of supporting evidence. Sorry hypothetical, unexpert conjecture does not constitute as evidence. You might as well adopt a religion ... the traits of blind faith are the same. |
Again.. you are not looking at it from the point of what the government has said, and just looking at how the plane hit.. yes it hit the ground a bit RIGHT beside the building and then plunged into it, however, it took a very skilled pilot to do this.
How can one train at a flight school for 6 months on Cessna planes and do this on the first try. Ive seen interviews with pilots that are very surprised at what was executed by an amature pilot on his first flight aboard a commercial airliner. |
|
|
| smokeape |
I think Occrider covered it down pretty well, if not driving a stake into the missle hypothesis. How ridiculous. There were actual civilian bodies recovered which apparently weren't strapped to a missle as well as plane wreckage. I knew two who were killed there personally and a few others, so please drop it, Cyus and discuss something else like your impotency.
:whip:
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Furthermore, the conspiracy theory argues itself on the merits of doubt (how typical) as opposed to a theory that argues itself on the merits of supporting evidence. Sorry hypothetical, unexpert conjecture does not constitute as evidence. You might as well adopt a religion ... the traits of blind faith are the same. |
Bah. I saw that coming. Occ you're getting predictable in your old age!
I would ask that you don't try to relate conspiracy theory nutcases with religious people. The Bible, whether you believe in the "unexplainable" stuff in there is irrelevant; it's still used and confirmed as a good historical record.
Anyway, I agree with your sentiments on this case. |
|
|
|
|
