[gerbnl]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
This post is a waste of time.
<snip>

Fixed!

[george68]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Again, the 757's fuselage is not going to leave a trace on a steel-reinforced concrete building like the Pentagon. The cockpit, with all its electronics/mechanics, punched a hole. The fuselage itself is just a more-or-less empty hollow eggshell that completely disintegrated in the collision.

-s*

Fine. It disintegrated and melted leaving no trace.... but where the hell is the 10+ tons of MELTED aluminum? You can burn aluminum, you can MELT aluminum, but you can't vaporize it.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
Not to mention the large amount of fuel it was carrying, which more than likely aided in melting the hell out of the thin metallic skin of the aircraft.

So where is all this molten metal? I see a few chunks here and there, but no evidence of the amount of melted aluminum that comprises a 757.

- Rob

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by gerbnl:
I, gerbnl, am an arsehole!

Fixed!

[george68]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The windows on that section of the Pentagon were replaced with heavily armored ones to prevent shattering in the event of a large truck bomb. That's why most of them thankfully remained intact when the plane hit. I have read survivor's accounts of seeing a wave of flame outside the windows, and of those armored windows saving their lives.

Heavily armored...sure... they'd have to withstand bullets and shrapnel, I can see that. But a 20+ ton aircraft with over 6000 gallons of fuel?????

Look, I understand that they had fancy windows....but you know what? I'm pretty sure that if I drove a semi at a 1ft thick glass plate, the semi would win. The semi would probably be destroyed, but the windows would undoubtedly lose.

Have any specs from your friend on how strong these windows are???

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by BasketofPuppies:
Uhh... all of that was there.

Where? Got pics?

- Rob

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by george68:
Fine. It disintegrated and melted leaving no trace.... but where the hell is the 10+ tons of MELTED aluminum? You can burn aluminum, you can MELT aluminum, but you can't vaporize it.

- Rob

ever seen a mobile home (aka, trailer) fire?

you can vaporize aluminum.

[Chris O'Brien]

Originally posted by george68:
Fine. It disintegrated and melted leaving no trace.... but where the hell is the 10+ tons of MELTED aluminum? You can burn aluminum, you can MELT aluminum, but you can't vaporize it.

- Rob

Why on earth would you make the assumption that you can't vapourise aluminium? Of course you can!

Here's some facts:
It melts at only 660 degrees C
It vapourises at 2457 degrees C at atmospheric pressure. This equates to about 293.4kJ/mol for the science buffs

[george68]

Originally posted by djohnson:


I have heard many planes flying overhead on direct approaches to runways. If you are within a certain area, you will not hear that plane coming in or it will sound very soft. A missle? Yeah right... I dont think missles have enough inertia to blow a hole through 3 layers of reinforced concrete buildings.

Remember, the Pentagon is not only built like a fortress, it is a fortress!

I don't think a missile would cut it either. Too small, and the object was moving too slow to be a missile. Most missiles go much much much faster than 500mph....

A CRUISE MISSILE, however, is perfectly capable of flying right near the ground and avoiding obstacles and plowing through reinforced concrete. There are cruise missiles DESIGNED to destroy bunkers. I would think the pentagon would be no sweat.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by Black Book:
Why on earth would you make the assumption that you can't vapourise aluminium? Of course you can!

Here's some facts:
It melts at only 660 degrees C
It vapourises at 2457 degrees C at atmospheric pressure. This equates to about 293.4kJ/mol for the science buffs

Hrm. So you're saying that 20 tons of aluminum could be vaporized by 6000 gallons of jet fuel?

Just asking.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by Black Book:
Why on earth would you make the assumption that you can't vapourise aluminium? Of course you can!

Here's some facts:
It melts at only 660 degrees C
It vapourises at 2457 degrees C at atmospheric pressure. This equates to about 293.4kJ/mol for the science buffs

Because he went to the Madison Area Tech College for like 3 minutes to study computers, TV/VCR repair, or something equally hard. Coupled with his high level of maturity, he has a marriage license to prove he is, he can look at things with just a glance and use his brand of common sense to discern all the finite and technical details.
He doesn't even need to know what a joule or foot pound is.

[george68]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
So then what hit the pentagon? A small plane with awesome structural integrity? Not to mention enough fuel to cause a fireball and keep burning.

I would think small plane + explosives..... look at the vid... it doesn't look like a 757.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Because he went to the Madison Area Tech College for like 3 minutes to study computers, TV/VCR repair, or something equally hard. Coupled with his high level of maturity, he has a marriage license to prove he is, he can look at things with just a glance and use his brand of common sense to discern all the finite and technical details.
He doesn't even need to know what a joule or foot pound is.

And AGAIN captain moron is wrong about his assumptions of me.

Do you do this on purpose, or are you honestly trying to guess my history?

- Rob

PS: Yep. A guy who's pretty much obsessed with cars and originally went to school (1.5 yrs) for engineering knows NOTHING about joules of ft/lbs.

PPS: maybe instead of incorrect personal attacks that do nothing except prove how much you don't know, you should try answering the questions raised in this thread...but wait... you don't have to, BECAUSE YOU ARE BETTER THAN EVERYONE AT EVERYTHING! YOU ARE...

CAPTAIN OBVIOUS! THE BEST PERSON IN THE ENTIRE WORLD!

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Fixed!

No problem, i can live with that.

[John F. Smith]

george68, why do you always get into these stupid arguments about which you know nothing? this reminds me of that fight you had about the risk of using cell phones in airplanes... just let it go!

[Chris O'Brien]

Originally posted by george68:
Hrm. So you're saying that 20 tons of aluminum could be vaporized by 6000 gallons of jet fuel?

Just asking.

Well no, I'm not saying that. I was only replying to your assertion that aluminium wouldn't vapourise.

Now, I stopped doing mechanical engineering 2 years ago (Durham does a General Engineering degree for 2 years and then you specialise - like Oxbridge I believe) so for me to make an assertion that it could or couldn't have happen is pretty ludicrous. I don't know. However, I see little reason for it not to have happened - the pressures involved etc are immense. The 2457C temp. applies when you are holding a chunk of aluminium in a room and applying heat and no added pressure.

I posted a link on the second page of this thread which showed how they have modelled what happened. I suggest reading that and looking around on google for further information if you want to draw some real conclusions. Saying things with no factual basis is not really the way forward...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by george68:
Heavily armored...sure... they'd have to withstand bullets and shrapnel, I can see that. But a 20+ ton aircraft with over 6000 gallons of fuel?????

Look, I understand that they had fancy windows....but you know what? I'm pretty sure that if I drove a semi at a 1ft thick glass plate, the semi would win. The semi would probably be destroyed, but the windows would undoubtedly lose.

Have any specs from your friend on how strong these windows are???

- Rob

These were the windows to the sides of the impact area. The ones in the direct impact area were obviously crushed along with the walls that supported them. But the ones which weren't directly in the impact area but which were subjected to the blast performed as they were designed to do. Ordinary glass would have imploded just as the ones in the African embassies imploded. They would have sprayed the people inside with glass fragments. But these armored windows were designed specifically not to do that, and they worked. For once we can credit the government with foresight.

Enough with the windows. My source on them is the guy who supervised their installation and he told me about them well before 9/11. They were real.

On the broader conspiracy theories, I'm wondering if anyone can come up with witnesses for these other attack instruments. There were eyewitnesses to the 757 coming in. It came in over a highway during rush hour and lots of people saw it. All these other theories require those witnesses to confuse a 757 with either a missile or a light aircraft. It's really quite absurd.

Clearly, something blew a huge hole in the Pentagon. Nobody disputes that a few minutes earlier two 757s were flown into the World Trade Center. Nobody disputes that one other 757 crashed in Pennsylvania, and that a fourth plane also vanished. Why do people have to invent complex conspiracy theories to explain away what is so obvious?

It isn't as though the US wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan based on the World Trade Center alone. The WTC has since the very beginning completely overshadowed the Pentagon casualties. 9/11 was horrible enough to precipitate a reaction with or without the Pentagon attack so these complex conspiracy theories make no sense.

[george68]

Originally posted by John F. Smith:
george68, why do you always get into these stupid arguments about which you know nothing? this reminds me of that fight you had about the risk of using cell phones in airplanes... just let it go!

Glad you brought Cells up.

http://physics911.org/net/modules/ne....php?storyid=6

How the f*cking HELL were the calls placed from the airplane???!?!?

- Rob

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by george68:
And AGAIN captain moron is wrong about his assumptions of me.

Do you do this on purpose, or are you honestly trying to guess my history?

- Rob

PS: Yep. A guy who's pretty much obsessed with cars and originally went to school (1.5 yrs) for engineering knows NOTHING about joules of ft/lbs.
PPS: maybe instead of incorrect personal attacks that do nothing except prove how much you don't know, you should try answering the questions raised in this thread...but wait... you don't have to, BECAUSE YOU ARE BETTER THAN EVERYONE AT EVERYTHING! YOU ARE...

CAPTAIN OBVIOUS! THE BEST PERSON IN THE ENTIRE WORLD!

Do you not know how to make fun of people? I mean I know your mother doesn't actually prostitute herself on street corners but its still quite effective and funny to say. You don't actually think I care enough to remember the details of your life do you? And its one thing to study something but its quite another to drop out of school. Who knows maybe you failed out? That is far more likely than you being able to figure out a way to complete all the requirements in 3 semesters ... which by the way is about the amount of ME courses I took.

Anyway, I don't have to answer any questions. Like I said I leave that up to people who know more about the subject. I am just calling you and the other genius out for sh!ts and giggles. You two bleed stupidity.


PPS: You're seriously going to criticize me for personal attacks?
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post2159711
<-- just for you since you like them so much

[djohnson]

Originally posted by george68:
Glad you brought Cells up.

http://physics911.org/net/modules/ne....php?storyid=6

How the f*cking HELL were the calls placed from the airplane???!?!?

- Rob

Did you read the article?

Cellphones are line of sight communications. They will have a limited range on the ground especially with obstacles like buildings and such. Line of sight has almost no altitude restrictions. I have alot of experience with this so I can verify it. About the phones no working inside the plane. Passenger aircraft are full of windows. The windows cannot block RF energy, neither would the lavatory door which is usually plastic. There would not be much problem with reception. The aircraft were nowhere near 30000 feet after the hijackings as they were deccending towards their targets (A large aircarft would require a long glide slope to get to building level)

You people need to try to get you r facts together and post them. I have seen nothing on this site which could be accepted as facts

[BoomStick]

Originally posted by george68:
I would think small plane + explosives..... look at the vid... it doesn't look like a 757.

- Rob

So what kind of plane is it in your "professional" opinion, since you have sooooooo much experience with aircraft.

Not to mention .swf files are gospel since they are unaltered.




Just to think, these losers that believe this shockwave file crap are the same one who are voting for Kerry.

AHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!111oneoneone

[RonnieoftheRose]

I don't know about the Boeing 757 because I wasn't there. What I do know is that I just turned on the oven half an hour ago to warm my pizza but forgot that the pizza box was inside the oven! After ten minutes I smelt smoke, went to the oven, opened it and found the box was on fire but the pizza was perfectly cooked inside without a bit of ash on it.

How's that for a slice of fried gold?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
So what kind of plane is it in your "professional" opinion, since you have sooooooo much experience with aircraft.

Not to mention .swf files are gospel since they are unaltered.

Just to think, these losers that believe this shockwave file crap are the same one who are voting for Kerry.

AHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!111oneoneone

Better yet, they all have access to those image resolution enhancers that are so prevalent in the movies!

[york28]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Did you read the article?

I contest this, only because I know pilots that have attempted to make calls, and even when they get a signal, they can't make a call.

I'm not saying that it's a conspiracy, just that sone things are weird. But I suppose that even if something fishy did go on, we're never going to know the truth. At least any time in the near future.

As for the pizza box, that is because that the box has a lower ignition temp than the pizza did- probably since the pizza was frozen. Last time I checked, metal of any kind had a temp that is higher than human flesh.

[djohnson]

About the cell phones, I would have to ask my dad on this. He works for the FAA and a Safety Inspector and thus flies/rides on planes all of the time. Unfortunately for everyone here, I no longer talk to him. Maybe I will get my brother to ask him...

Anyways, the only thing I have tried is using a GPS reciever on a plane. Sure it picked up the satellites, but man were the readings jacked up! At one point we were going close to 80,000 feet up. Different technology becuase the GPS depends on multiple triangulations and the cell phone only needs a single tower, but close enough.

[york28]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
Just to think, these losers that believe this shockwave file crap are the same one who are voting for Kerry.

No, most of the people that I know that are voting for Kerry are only voting for him because they'd rather have a half-loser in office than a complete disaster.

It has nothing to do with conspiracy, physics, or the temperature at which aluminum vaporizes. Simply put, Bush is a master of PR tactics (that have obviously snared you) which are being used to push policies that are detrimental to the country as a whole.

Do some research (from independent parties, please, partisan sources don't count) and see for yourself.

[york28]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Anyways, the only thing I have tried is using a GPS reciever on a plane. Sure it picked up the satellites, but man were the readings jacked up! At one point we were going close to 80,000 feet up. Different technology becuase the GPS depends on multiple triangulations and the cell phone only needs a single tower, but close enough.

GPS recievers are very sensitive to signal strength in my experience, as in they usually don't work worth a crap inside a building. But again, like you said, they are completely different technology, since they pick up signals sent from satellites, and don't need to transmit a signal of their own. At least the ones I've used work this way.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
OK well when we have a structural engineer and a physicist with the background information on the two objects necessary to assess the claims then we'll talk. Right now the word of a dental hygienist and two homosexual computer techs from Canada are not really a compelling source of credibility.

I actually laughed out loud at the one.

Seriously.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Peter:
America attacked themselves for a reason to attack Iraq...

Another funny one.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I actually laughed out loud at the one.

Seriously.

Careful, careful!

[itai195]

Originally posted by george68:
Except that all the windows were NOT BROKEN IN THE 1ST FLOOR excluding the 20-30 ft hole...... and the fact that the 757s fuselage is much much much wider than that.

- Rob

The fuselage of a 757 is 12.5 feet wide, according to Boeing. As others have said, a 757 traveling 400mph is nothing compared to a stationary building as strong as the Pentagon. Ever seen a car that hit a concrete barrier, or even a light post, on the highway? It's completely totalled.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by george68:
I would think small plane + explosives..... look at the vid... it doesn't look like a 757.

- Rob

So exactly how do explosives help your theory? If they were on the plane they would:

a) Have to detonate after it had entered the building. By which time everyone would be dead.

The explosives were NOT in the building because nothing was blown outward. That would have also destroyed every last window and created a far different fireball.

The video you see is far away and at a bad angle. Due to the angle the plane is actually further from the camera than the area where it hit.

Plus you have the physics dilemma of how a puny plane like that kicked a hole through 4 (8 walls??) layers of reinforced steel an concrete.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by itai195:
The fuselage of a 757 is 12.5 feet wide, according to Boeing. As others have said, a 757 traveling 400mph is nothing compared to a stationary building as strong as the Pentagon. Ever seen a car that hit a concrete barrier, or even a light post, on the highway? It's completely totalled.

True. A small concrete barrier survives, but the car hitting it at "only" 70 mph is totally destroyed. Now add in the extra weight of a fully loaded 757 plus the extra 300+ mph and it is easy to see instant destruction to the plane and very little damage to the building.

Remember, the twin towers did not collapse because of the collisions with the planes, it was because of the enourmous heat melting/vaporizing everything.

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Enough with the windows. My source on them is the guy who supervised their installation and he told me about them well before 9/11. They were real.

Fancy you, i saw some tests on those windows simply on Discovery, Europe even.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
On the broader conspiracy theories,

A conspiracy theory is a construction of events, an assumption of what has happened. And while that is very interesting, nobody tried to theorize about what happened, people just asked questions, nothing more. And i don't care whether those questions where born out of ignorance or out of inbred paranoia, i think the questions themselves are valid enough. At least some people here tried to use their knowledge to come up with explanations for the questions and while some of them where interesting (including yours) they don't even begin to answer all the questions that are out there about flight 77 alone. The truth will not necessarily be complex, just different, from the official one.

It would be interesting to try and find answers on most of those questions and them maybe, when we have, concoct a nice conspiracy theory (if it's still necessary).

And since there seems to be a pilot in the thread, could you comment on the flying skills needed for (or the odds that one without skills would pull it off) the maneuver the plane made? I don't mean the flying so close to the ground, but the ascent it made: It was supposedly missing on radar during the bit with the questionmarks. That bit took a little less than an hour. How high must it have flown to do that? Can a commercial airplane do that in the first place? I've been told that it must have been in excess of 60.000 feet, but i am not a pilot and metric too.



Now two questions about pilot skills (and remember, the supposed pilot - Hani Hanjour - was assessed as incompetent by the flight school)

First, navigation: how easy is it to find their target from an altitude above radar's reach?

Second, descent: how hard is it to make such a neat 270 degree turn (nearly overflying the white house and capitol too) and to end up at the right altitude to crash into a side of the pentagon. (A side, i might add, that was recently been renovated and reinforced and where, pending the finishing of the works, very little people where working. Any other piece of the pentagon would have been easier to crash into AND made much more victims)

[BoomStick]

Originally posted by gerbnl:

And since there seems to be a pilot in the thread, could you comment on the flying skills needed for (or the odds that one without skills would pull it off) the maneuver the plane made? I don't mean the flying so close to the ground, but the ascent it made: It was supposedly missing on radar during the bit with the questionmarks. That bit took a little less than an hour. How high must it have flown to do that? Can a commercial airplane do that in the first place? I've been told that it must have been in excess of 60.000 feet, but i am not a pilot and metric too.

Now two questions about pilot skills (and remember, the supposed pilot - Hani Hanjour - was assessed as incompetent by the flight school)

First, navigation: how easy is it to find their target from an altitude above radar's reach?

Second, descent: how hard is it to make such a neat 270 degree turn (nearly overflying the white house and capitol too) and to end up at the right altitude to crash into a side of the pentagon. (A side, i might add, that was recently been renovated and reinforced and where, pending the finishing of the works, very little people where working. Any other piece of the pentagon would have been easier to crash into AND made much more victims)

1500 feet is the limit for radar contact it can see anything above. The transponders were switched off so they would not contact the interrigator regardless.
I can find anything at 1500 agl. In fact I can see Eufala from 16J as soon as I hit 1500.
A 270� turn is quite easy by watching the directional gyro and the vsi in the turn. Not to mention it has autotrim to keep the back pressure to a minimum.

The Pentagon is so big that it would be easy to line up on, even with a 757 which is quite nimble, even with a load. As for the theory of the area of impact, I'd need a topographical aeronautical chart for the area to see why he chose the area of descent.

[finboy]

Originally posted by york28:
Physics of 911 has some pretty scary information, assuming that it is correct, which I can not be sure of.

AK Dewdney, one of the recent authors on this site, has done some good work on the math of complexity, and popular math, but this recent stuff sounds pretty shabby.

I was following along right up to the point where someone suggested that it was a conspiracy to cover something up. Those don't work. They don't happen. People talk. And this one would have to be right up there with the faked moon shot in terms of scale.

Tinfoil hat time, no question. The ideas sell books to suckers, though, so maybe these folks are bright after all.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by gerbnl:
Now two questions about pilot skills (and remember, the supposed pilot - Hani Hanjour - was assessed as incompetent by the flight school)

Maybe he was deemed incompetent because he kept crashing his landings? Seriously, I remember reading that they were only interested in take-off and navigation during training. You can't get a "good" rating if you can't land the plane.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Maybe he was deemed incompetent because he kept crashing his landings? Seriously, I remember reading that they were only interested in take-off and navigation during training. You can't get a "good" rating if you can't land the plane.

Maybe his intention was never to land the plane in the first place... oh wait, he did crash the plane!

[zen jihad]

Well, tonight on one of our major tv networks (channel 4), they're airing a documentary called, '9/11 Conspiracies'. I've also seen a number of mainstream (read: broadsheet papers) taking up some of the points laid out by those who suspect we don't know the whole truth about 9/11.

Anyone remember the Northwoods Project? It's when the US Military, or Government, planned to fly several commercial jets into LA during the 60's. They intended to 'set-up' the Cubans by saying they did it, and thus further legitimize future action on Cuba.

Now, we might be in 'shock and awe' at what happened on 9/11, but let's not forget that the US isn't morally above anyone else in regards to such evil acts. It never happened though, because Kennedy got wind of it, but it just shows you that such devous acts aren't beyond the realms of fantasy. If the US can even think of doing this just 30 odd years ago, then why not now?

It's all quite interesting though.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
Well, tonight on one of our major tv networks (channel 4), they're airing a documentary called, '9/11 Conspiracies'. I've also seen a number of mainstream (read: broadsheet papers) taking up some of the points laid out by those who suspect we don't know the whole truth about 9/11.

Anyone remember the Northwoods Project? It's when the US Military, or Government, planned to fly several commercial jets into LA during the 60's. They intended to 'set-up' the Cubans by saying they did it, and thus further legitimize future action on Cuba.

Now, we might be in 'shock and awe' at what happened on 9/11, but let's not forget that the US isn't morally above anyone else in regards to such evil acts. It never happened though, because Kennedy got wind of it, but it just shows you that such devous acts aren't beyond the realms of fantasy. If the US can even think of doing this just 30 odd years ago, then why not now?

It's all quite interesting though.

links?

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by djohnson:
links?

Just google it, it's common knowledge now since the files were de-classified a few years ago. It's not some conspiracy mumbo jumbo though, but it is actual fact for once, so you should find some good sources on it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
As for the theory of the area of impact, I'd need a topographical aeronautical chart for the area to see why he chose the area of descent.

I know nothing about piloting, but does it make any difference that Reagan National Airport is directly on the other side of the Pentagon from the direction he came in? I.e. from the air on the approach he took, he could aim for the airport (or beacons on it??) and then just nose down?

Like I say, I am just a layman.

[zen jihad]

djohnson - here's something I found via a quick search, it only mentions a few types of fake incidents that were proposed.. It's been a while since I actually read anything about this, but nonetheless, all quite fascinating.

Here's a link too. http://www.propagandamatrix.com/amer...ey_wars_2.html


"The plan calls for, among other things, the staging of terrorist incidents that would provide "pretexts" and "justifications" to attack Cuba. It outlined how Cuba would first be "demonized" in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of the United Nations. It is exactly the same script being utilized against Iraq. It provided ways by which Cuba would be seen as "rash", "irresponsible", "unpredictable", and a "threat" to the peace of the Western Hemisphere.

Among some of the specific "staged" terrorist incidents the plan proposed were to "blow up" a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba, attack the U.S. Guantanamo base with "fake" Cubans, and use fake MIG type aircraft piloted by U.S. pilots to attack US surface ships and passenger airlines. One proposal made by the Northwoods Project, and this may explain the "phantom" AA passenger airline that supposedly hit the Pentagon on September 11, was to provoke the Cuban government to shoot down a U.S passenger airline that the CIA would substitute with a "drone." In addition, the plan called for producing U.S. citizen casualty lists in Florida and Washington D.C. that would be published in the media thus generating "indignation" by the American public.

[djohnson]

I have a problem with that site. They sound like they are blaming the following on the US:

This all sounds just too chillingly familiar in the current climate when we think of the WTC bombing in 1993, the Murrah bombing and McVeigh, Flight TWA 800 (which it appears we may have just seen a reconstruction of), the hijackings of September 11th and the inciting of hatred for Osama Bin Laden without any evidence that he carried out the attacks.

Call me crazy, but we have proof that Bin Laden was involved and the other incidents were carried out by other people...

[BoomStick]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I know nothing about piloting, but does it make any difference that Reagan National Airport is directly on the other side of the Pentagon from the direction he came in? I.e. from the air on the approach he took, he could aim for the airport (or beacons on it??) and then just nose down?

Like I say, I am just a layman.

Why YES, yes it does!

He could just center up on the VOR or the ILS and point the nose down at the appropriate time.

Very elementary pilot training.

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by djohnson:
I have a problem with that site. They sound like they are blaming the following on the US:



Call me crazy, but we have proof that Bin Laden was involved and the other incidents were carried out by other people...

That's ok, there's a ton of other sites which will detail the Northwoods plans, none of which have an anti-US agenda.

Just google around for them, I just picked the first few I saw.

[zen jihad]

http://www.septembereleventh.org/for...r=391&Main=389

[djohnson]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/for...r=391&Main=389

Interesting read. Can I have someone name a time when there has not been war somewhere in the world?

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Interesting read. Can I have someone name a time when there has not been war somewhere in the world?

Always has been war, but I guess truth, deceit, and propoganda all get mixed up, hence the questions people have.

Anyway, here's another link for you.

http://www.afrocubaweb.com/news/nort...northwoods.htm

[djohnson]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
Always has been war, but I guess truth, deceit, and propoganda all get mixed up, hence the questions people have.

Anyway, here's another link for you.

http://www.afrocubaweb.com/news/nort...northwoods.htm

Oh I understand the questions. I guess for most people the only time we can go to war is when we are attacked first. There were some interesting points in those articles, but they seemed to rehash the same thing over and over again.