1810 replies to this topic

[Q24]

Scott G, on 23 December 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

I hadn't seen that line. Perhaps ASCE did persuade them to add to his testimony.

You provided a link without seeing what was in it?

That is worrying.

But ok, I’ll include this point against Probst.

Scott G, on 23 December 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

What I do know is that I haven't seen a single actual quote from Probst on the issue. Only what ASCE interpreted him to mean.

You didn’t take 30 seconds to watch the Probst video interview bee provided in post #4?

That is worrying.

Scott G, on 23 December 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

I mean that ASCE is a questionable source of information.

Ok, I’ll include this point too.

Scott G, on 23 December 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

I notice that you ignored my comment regarding ASCE's description of what Probst saw. Specifically:
"As he approached the heliport he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him."

Not south of the Navy Annex; -over- the Navy Annex. Why is it that you ignored that point? Is it because it goes against your view that the pentaplane didn't fly over the Navy Annex?

I’m not setting out to argue anything you say, only to understand and list your reasons against accepting eyewitnesses to an approach matching the damage path and impact.  I will include this “over the Navy Annex” point against Probst’s witnessing of the impact also.

If you actually want my argument:  The Navy Annex is the biggest building on the approach path.  There is a good possibility the building will be used as a general reference point by eyewitnesses who remember seeing a plane fly anywhere near it, which it did.  We are not dealing with a precise science – had the plane flown 100m to the left or right, eyewitnesses would still say, “over the Navy Annex”.

Scott G, on 23 December 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

Yes, it is. That being said, it seems they retained enough information to make it clear that Probst's flight path couldn't have been the official SoC flight path.

So let me try to summarise reasons for not accepting these eyewitnesses again…

Probst: -

• As he was diving to the floor, he did not witness the plane skim the ground, hit the generator and impact the Pentagon as he claimed.
  
  
• His account, interpreted a specific way, could place both him and the plane in a location incongruent with what he claims to have witnessed.
  
  
• The ASCE misrepresented what he actually saw so as to support an impact.

Mason: -

• He did not see the plane as he claimed because it conflicts with specifics of other eyewitness accounts.
  
  
• The ASCE encouraged him to support their false theory, and he did.

This is the best I can make of what you have said.

Effectively you have claimed two eyewitnesses to be fundamentally incorrect (in fact there’s no two ways about it considering the specifics of their accounts – you are calling them liars) based on a particular interpretation of their accounts and further implicated the ASCE as a part of the cover story.  Ok…


Eyewitness #3:  Rodney Washington

Reported September 12, in the Boston Globe: -

Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon when the American Airlines jet roared overhead from the southwest.

''It was extremely loud, as you can imagine, a plane that size, it was deafening,'' Washington said.

The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it.

It ''landed there and the momentum took it into the Pentagon,'' Washington said. ''There was a very, very brief delay and then it exploded.''

Washington speculated that it could have been worse: ''If it had kept altitude a little bit higher it probably would have landed in the middle of the Pentagon, in that court.''

http://www.boston.co...response .shtml

The fact he states, “momentum took it into the Pentagon” and, “''If it had kept altitude a little bit higher…” confirm first that he saw the impact and second that he did not see the plane fly over the building (a fact that we will see is consistent with all eyewitnesses).

So why should a third eyewitness, Rodney Washington, be discounted?

[bee]

Scott G, on 20 December 2011 - 02:01 AM, said:

Good point. The issue of air turbulence that low flying passenger planes make is addressed in the following video regarding the pentagon attack:
http://www.dailymoti...rike_shortfilms

The video makes a lot of other good points as well; the one point that most don't go for now is the missile theory though.

thanks for link.....you know..maybe the planes and the missile theories are all wrong and there were explosions

set off within the building? (from my theoretical standpoint...by Militant Islamists under cover...maybe a worker

or two who were working on the renovations???) Perhaps they knew they wouldn't have a chance of attacking the Pentagon from the

air, because of the security....? And when the bombs went off (there is a quote in your link about someone saying they

smelt cordite at 1:54)....to cover up the embarassment and to explain what happened to flight 77...which (according to my theory)

was taken by remote control over the Atlantic and disposed of for defensive reasons....


Ta for the Lloyd England vid...I expect we will come onto him and look at his witness testimony in detail at some point...


scott....

Quote

I think the alleged accident may have been to prepare for Lloyd England's taxi cab's being speared by a light pole. There was atleast one woman who was waved down by someone when she tried to go where Lloyd England's cab was soon to be 'found' by the media; instead of stopping, she got on the off ramp, which is quite possibly what the official wanted her to do anyway; clearly, if the plane didn't fly the official south flight path, no light pole would have been knocked down by a plan and there had to be no witnesses to the deception.

I've never heard of any crash during the time, but Lloyd England's story was in the news. Lloyde England's story is integral to the official 9/11 story; one of the lamp posts allegedly knocked down by Flight 77 allegedly speared his windshield. Not sure if you've seen CIT's video regarding Lloyd England; if not, I definitely recommend it:

underlined..Maybe...but I'm thinking more, that one of the first things they would do after the second tower was hit, would be
to stop the traffic around the Pentagon...to get control of the area. (which could include what you said about the light poles, though)





booN replying to Q24...

booNyzarC, on 20 December 2011 - 06:31 AM, said:

That is a valid point, but I still think it would have required blind luck to get any decent footage of the crash.

DOES the Headquarters of the US Department of Defense rely on 'blind luck' to monitor and protect itself???  

Especially when America is under attack?



The lack of proper photographic evidence for flight 77 hitting the Pentagon is the achilles heel in the Official Account
and in any Inside Job theory that requires flight 77 to have hit the building...IMO.


.

[bee]

Q24, on 23 December 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

Eyewitness #3:  Rodney Washington

Reported September 12, in the Boston Globe: -

Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon when the American Airlines jet roared overhead from the southwest.

''It was extremely loud, as you can imagine, a plane that size, it was deafening,'' Washington said.

The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it.

It ''landed there and the momentum took it into the Pentagon,'' Washington said. ''There was a very, very brief delay and then it exploded.''

Washington speculated that it could have been worse: ''If it had kept altitude a little bit higher it probably would have landed in the middle of the Pentagon, in that court.''

http://www.boston.co...response .shtml

The fact he states, “momentum took it into the Pentagon” and, “''If it had kept altitude a little bit higher…” confirm first that he saw the impact and second that he did not see the plane fly over the building (a fact that we will see is consistent with all eyewitnesses).

So why should a third eyewitness, Rodney Washington, be discounted?

well....as you know... ..all the witnesses can be discounted in my 'theory'...and their motive for

fabricating their stories would be that they were under security oaths and doing their patriotic duty

to help cover up flight 77 being taken over the Atlantic and shot down...which would have been a devasting admission

to make under the circumstances of the fateful day. To avoid world headlines like.....'US shoots down own Airliner,

killing all aboard'...etc etc.


But I will take a closer look at witness #3 when I have more time....cheers.

[booNyzarC]

bee, on 23 December 2011 - 07:29 PM, said:

thanks for link.....you know..maybe the planes and the missile theories are all wrong and there were explosions

set off within the building? (from my theoretical standpoint...by Militant Islamists under cover...maybe a worker

or two who were working on the renovations???) Perhaps they knew they wouldn't have a chance of attacking the Pentagon from the

air, because of the security....? And when the bombs went off (there is a quote in your link about someone saying they

smelt cordite at 1:54)....to cover up the embarassment and to explain what happened to flight 77...which (according to my theory)

was taken by remote control over the Atlantic and disposed of for defensive reasons....

Or maybe...  it was Superman?

(I worked hard on that comic and got no response the first time... )

[bee]

booNyzarC, on 23 December 2011 - 08:23 PM, said:

Or maybe...  it was Superman?

(I worked hard on that comic and got no response the first time... )

Oh sorry......hahahahahahaha....didn't realise you had done the comic yourself..


Personally, I'm ruling Superman out. Call me impulsive, rash, but.....   

Unless he nipped in front of flight 77 and destroyed most of it with a lump of kryptonite...hence the little hole?

[bee]

sorry....an edit went wrong..must have run out of time

Edited by bee, 23 December 2011 - 08:55 PM.

[booNyzarC]

bee, on 23 December 2011 - 08:51 PM, said:

Oh sorry......hahahahahahaha....didn't realise you had done the comic yourself..


Personally, I'm ruling Superman out. Call me impulsive, rash, but.....   

Unless he nipped in front of flight 77 and destroyed most of it with a lump of kryptonite...hence the little hole?

I guess the Superman theory isn't very likely.  Oh well... back to the drawing board...

[Scott G]

bee, on 23 December 2011 - 07:29 PM, said:

Scott G, on 20 December 2011 - 02:01 AM, said:

Good  point. The issue of air turbulence that low flying passenger planes make  is addressed in the following video regarding the pentagon attack:
http://www.dailymoti...rike_shortfilms

The video makes a lot of other good points as well; the one point that most don't go for now is the missile theory though.

thanks for link.....

Np

bee, on 23 December 2011 - 07:29 PM, said:

you know..maybe the planes and the missile theories are all wrong and there were explosions set off within the building?

This is the conclusion of Citizen Investigation Team and Pilots for 9/11 Truth seems to believe the same as well (as do I).

bee, on 23 December 2011 - 07:29 PM, said:

(from my theoretical standpoint...by Militant Islamists under cover...maybe a worker or two who were working on the renovations???)
Perhaps they knew they wouldn't have a chance of attacking the Pentagon from the air, because of the security....?

There is evidence which suggests that Dick Cheney was in on it. Check this link out:
Do The Orders Still Stand?

bee, on 23 December 2011 - 07:29 PM, said:

And when the bombs went off (there is a quote in your link about someone saying they smelt cordite at 1:54)

Indeed :-)

bee, on 23 December 2011 - 07:29 PM, said:

....to cover up the embarassment and to explain what happened to flight 77...which (according to my theory) was taken by remote control over the Atlantic and disposed of for defensive reasons....

I definitely believe that one or more of the 9/11 planes were driven by remote control to their targets (or to be targeted for destruction as the case may be). However, I don't think that they were destroyed to cover up an embarassment. That being said, I don't think we should really go in this direction; first, I think we should all try to agree on what the planes did (in this case Flight 77, or the plane posing as such that approached the pentagon).

bee, on 23 December 2011 - 07:29 PM, said:

Ta for the Lloyd England vid...I expect we will come onto him and look at his witness testimony in detail at some point...

I hope so; I've studied his testimony more then any other witness. If you take a look at the video, let me know what you think.

bee, on 23 December 2011 - 07:29 PM, said:

Scott G, on 20 December 2011 - 02:01 AM, said:

I think the alleged accident may have been to prepare for Lloyd  England's taxi cab's being speared by a light pole. There was atleast  one woman who was waved down by someone when she tried to go where Lloyd  England's cab was soon to be 'found' by the media; instead of stopping,  she got on the off ramp, which is quite possibly what the official  wanted her to do anyway; clearly, if the plane didn't fly the official  south flight path, no light pole would have been knocked down by a plan  and there had to be no witnesses to the deception.

I've never  heard of any crash during the time, but Lloyd England's story was in the  news. Lloyde England's story is integral to the official 9/11 story;  one of the lamp posts allegedly knocked down by Flight 77 allegedly  speared his windshield. Not sure if you've seen CIT's video regarding  Lloyd England; if not, I definitely recommend it:

underlined..Maybe... but I'm thinking more, that one of the first things they would do after the second tower was hit, would be
to stop the traffic around the Pentagon...to get control of the area. (which could include what you said about the light poles, though)

Nods. CIT currently promotes its video National Security Alert as the video to see first regarding the pentagon attack. Have you seen it? If not, you may want to take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJzQtz3RAmE

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #61, part 1

Q24, on 23 December 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

Scott G, on 23 December 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

I hadn't seen that line. Perhaps ASCE did persuade them to add to his testimony.

You provided a link without seeing what was in it?

That is worrying.

I read a fair amount. Not all of it. There are only so many hours in a day and I do have other things to do.

Q24, on 23 December 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

But ok, I'll include this point against Probst.

Ok.

Q24, on 23 December 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

Scott G, on 23 December 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

What I do know is that I haven't seen a single actual quote from Probst on the issue. Only what ASCE interpreted him to mean.

You didn't take 30 seconds to watch the Probst video interview bee provided in post #4?

That is worrying.

Again, There are only so many hours in the day; while I do create a thread tree for all the posts here, it doesn't mean I read every single post in the thread. In any case, he doesn't give a flight path in that 30 second interview; the ASCE report gives more detail of the flight path he observed, most importantly mentioning that he saw it fly over the Navy Annex, which concords with CIT's witnesses, not the official SoC flight path. This being said, I think it would be good to review his statements in said 30 second interview. He stated:
The engine was about 6 feet off the ground, coming right at me, and I laid out on the ground. I watched the plane come over top of me, the street lights were falling on both sides of where I was. 2 engines from the plane, which hang way down underneath the plane, both hit, short of the pentagon in this area out here… and then there was a fireball right after that… and I can remember the tail section.. disappearing into the fireball.

First of all, if the plane was so close to him, he should have experienced a lot of turbulence; and yet, he makes no mention of this, which strongly suggests that the plane wasn't as close to him as he alleges. As to his statement regarding the pentaplane's engines, could it be that he says that the engine was 6 feet off the ground at that point because he was -told- that this was the case? He states that the street lights were falling on both sides of where he was but he doesn't state that the plane had anything to do with it. Perhaps more importantly, he doesn't say that he himself observed this happening, suggesting that he may have heard of this from someone instead of witnessing it himself. He mentions that the 2 engines on the plane hit short of the pentagon "in this area out here".. and yet there are many pictures clearly demonstrating that the pentagon lawn was untouched. Have you seen the video pentagon strike? It makes a clear reference to this absurdity with its reference to "the amazing pentalawn" that can apparently be hit by massive passenger plane engines and yet remain unscathed. Finally there's his reference to a "fireball right after that" and his remembering that the tail section dissapeared into the fireball. Now here's the thing; he doesn't actually say that he witnessed the plane crashing into the pentagon, only that he saw the tail dissapearing into a fireball; but if the explosion was timed to coincide with the pentaplane's going over the pentagon, this is what you would see.

Q24, on 23 December 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

Scott G, on 23 December 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

I mean that ASCE is a questionable source of information.

Ok, I'll include this point too.

Ok.

Q24, on 23 December 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

  

Scott G, on 23 December 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

I notice that you ignored my comment regarding ASCE's description of what Probst saw. Specifically:
"As he approached the heliport he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him."

Not south of the Navy Annex; -over- the Navy Annex. Why is it that you  ignored that point? Is it because it goes against your view that the  pentaplane didn't fly over the Navy Annex?

I'm not setting out to argue anything you say, only to understand and list your reasons against accepting eyewitnesses to an approach matching the damage path and impact.

How can you list Probst as an eyewitness to an approach matching the damage path when it's clear that he's stating that it took a flight path that would make it impossible for the plane to match the damage path? Or are you someone who thinks that it could have flown over the Navy Annex and then switched over to an SoC flight path? If so, I could perhaps dig up the research done by PFT showing that this would have been impossible for a passenger plane.

Q24, on 23 December 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

I will include this "over the Navy Annex" point against Probst's witnessing of the impact also.

I think I should state that I believe it's possible that Probst witnessed the pentaplane approach the pentagon and appear to get swallowed by an explosion that he assumed was the same plane crashing into the pentagon.

Edited by Scott G, 24 December 2011 - 09:46 AM.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #61, part 2

Q24, on 23 December 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

If you actually want my argument:  The Navy Annex is the biggest building on the approach path.  There is a good possibility the building will be used as a general reference point by eyewitnesses who remember seeing a plane fly anywhere near it, which it did.  We are not dealing with a precise science – had the plane flown 100m to the left or right, eyewitnesses would still say, "over the Navy Annex".

I've seen no evidence that they would say such a thing if it didn't fly over the Navy Annex. When you combine this with the fact that Ed Paik, who saw the plane approach the Navy Annex, and Terry Morin, who was -at- the Navy Annex and clearly said that it passed over it, along with atleast one other person (he was at the Pentagon heliport) who said they saw it go over the Navy Annex, it becomes clear that the pentaplane's passage over the Navy Annex is heavily corroborated.

Q24, on 23 December 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

So let me try to summarise reasons for not accepting these eyewitnesses again…

Probst: -

As he was diving to the floor, he did not witness the plane skim the ground, hit the generator and impact the Pentagon as he claimed.

That's far too simplistic. Aside from issues that PFT brings up, which make it clear that a passenger plane simply couldn't have hit the light poles and then gone over the pentagon lawn low and level before hitting the pentalawn without leaving a scratch on it and finally hitting the pentagon, there's also the fact that his placement of the plane over the Navy Annex adds another layer of impossibility to the notion that it would then transition into an SoC flight path. This being said, it's possible that he -thought- that he witnessed the pentaplane hitting the pentagon for the reasons I've outlined above.

Q24, on 23 December 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

His account, interpreted a specific way, could place both him and the plane in a location incongruent with what he claims to have witnessed.

There's simply no way he could have seen the plane on an SoC flight path because of the reasons I've outlined above. And he gives one clear indication that it wasn't on the SoC path; his reported assertion that it had flown over the Navy Annex.

Q24, on 23 December 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

The ASCE misrepresented what he actually saw so as to support an impact.

Indeed. However, I find it very interesting that even the ASCE report reported that he said it flew over the Navy Annex. By the way, in bee's video of Frost's interview, there was another eyewitness interviewed before him, Cheryl Ryefield, who -also- mentions the Navy Annex. Specifically, she says:
"About 9:38, I was almost in front of the helipad. I saw a plane come over the hill near the Navy Annex. I just stopped the car, opened the door, left the keys in, it was running, the radio was on, I ran forward and.. I couldn't believe it."

Q24, on 23 December 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

Mason: -

    •    He did not see the plane as he claimed because it conflicts with specifics of other eyewitness accounts.
    •    The ASCE encouraged him to support their false theory, and he did.

Sounds ok.

Q24, on 23 December 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

This is the best I can make of what you have said.

Effectively you have claimed two eyewitnesses to be fundamentally incorrect (in fact there's no two ways about it considering the specifics of their accounts – you are calling them liars)

No, I'm not calling them liars. I'm saying that Probst's testimony is internally contradictory to some extent (the pentaplane couldn't have been over the Navy Annex -and- been on an SoC path), and both of their stories have been disproven by PFT's calculations regarding the impossibility of the pentaplane hitting the light poles and pulling up from a steep dive to hit the pentalawn yet leave it untouched and finally hitting the pentagon low and level, somehow only leaving a tiny hole in the pentagon itself and "vaporizing" most of the plane. That being said, they may believe every word of what they've said. However, as I've pointed out,  atleast in Probst' case, he's said things that contradict other things that he's said.

Q24, on 23 December 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

based on a particular interpretation of their accounts and further implicated the ASCE as a part of the cover story.

I do find ASCE's report to be questionable. Why do they make no mention of the anomaly that the pentalawn was untouched despite the fact that the engines were supposed to have hit it? Why do they not mention the impossibility of the pentaplane being flying in from the Navy Annex and yet somehow still managing to switch into the SoC flight path?

Edited by Scott G, 24 December 2011 - 09:26 AM.

[Q24]

Thank you for the above extentions.  I’ll leave that last word with you on the first two eyewitness.  I’m content that the reasons for discounting their accounts have been summarised in basic terms based on your responses and I don’t see anymore to add (the broad summary I have given, simple as it is, does cover your latest posts).  I will continue responding from the third eyewitness, Rodney Washington, to keep us moving forward.

Just a note:  I understand that you think Balsamo has shown no flight path to the Pentagon impact point was possible due to the pull-up forces involved (that’s another topic).  I realise you could therefore say any eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the impact are mistaken due to this alone.  What I’m trying to understand here is how we would explain away each eyewitness who claims to have seen the damage flight path and/or impact.  In the case of Probst and Mason you have shown how we must claim their statements were fabricated and memories distorted by the ASCE… that’s good; it’s what I’m looking for… possible explanations of why exactly they came out with what they did.

Apart from that, it’s disappointing that you don’t grasp the point about eyewitness testimony in regard to the reference point of the Navy Annex.  If we were to take each individual statement and draw the flight path, you and I know full well there would be lines each side of and over the Navy Annex – it’s the way human memory works, it is rarely precise.  It would be a big mistake to take each account completely literally or apply zero tolerance to certain variation.

I look forward to your response to Rodney Washington’s testimony.


Edit: -

Scott G, on 24 December 2011 - 09:23 AM, said:

I read a fair amount. Not all of it. There are only so many hours in a day and I do have other things to do.

This is no excuse.  Notwithstanding the post was a five minute read if that, it is not good pactice to link something you haven’t even read.  It leaves you unable to evaluate/discuss a point that you are promoting.  It shows blind faith in the source and lack of independent thinking on your part.

Edited by Q24, 24 December 2011 - 10:29 AM.

[bee]

Q24, on 23 December 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

Eyewitness #3:  Rodney Washington

Reported September 12, in the Boston Globe: -

Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon when the American Airlines jet roared overhead from the southwest.

''It was extremely loud, as you can imagine, a plane that size, it was deafening,'' Washington said.

The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it.

It ''landed there and the momentum took it into the Pentagon,'' Washington said. ''There was a very, very brief delay and then it exploded.''

Washington speculated that it could have been worse: ''If it had kept altitude a little bit higher it probably would have landed in the middle of the Pentagon, in that court.''

http://www.boston.co...response .shtml

The fact he states, “momentum took it into the Pentagon” and, “''If it had kept altitude a little bit higher…” confirm first that he saw the impact and second that he did not see the plane fly over the building (a fact that we will see is consistent with all eyewitnesses).

So why should a third eyewitness, Rodney Washington, be discounted?

enlarged above....I think that he was required to say that the plane hit the ground before 'bouncing' into the Pentagon...
to explain why the bits of (clean) debris were on the ground in front of the building.

I actually think that the Boeing debris may have been brought over from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum that is quite
near to the Pentagon, over the river.

Scott G, on 24 December 2011 - 01:39 AM, said:

There is evidence which suggests that Dick Cheney was in on it. Check this link out:
Do The Orders Still Stand?

thanks...I did check it out and it does actually fit in nicely with my 'theory'....

I think that 'do the orders still stand ?' was about...do the orders still stand to take flight 77 over the Atlantic
and shoot it down.

In the link it says that....

Quote

In fact, two fighters were launched but were sent out over the Atlantic searching for Russians.

and I put it to you that these are the very 'fighters' that shot flight 77 down...over the Atlantic!

'Searching for Russians'.....eerrrr...I don't think so. One of the first thing that would have happened on 9/11
would have been communications with the Russians to eliminate them from the suspect list.


I know that everyone is poo pooing my theory...or at least not taking it seriously...but I still stand by it.

In fact, as time goes on I am more sure that I'm on the right track.

[Q24]

bee, on 24 December 2011 - 12:10 PM, said:

thanks...I did check it out and it does actually fit in nicely with my 'theory'....

I think that 'do the orders still stand ?' was about...do the orders still stand to take flight 77 over the Atlantic
and shoot it down.

The ‘orders still stand’ episode does not fit your theory considering the aide who provided Cheney radar updates of the plane approaching their location in Washington.

Sorry bee, your theory is completely nonsensical in far too many areas to mention but…

If they took control of the aircraft by remote in your theory then why take it out to sea rather than say err… land it?  If they took control of the aircraft by remote in your theory and wanted to dispose of it for whatever reason then why the need for a shoot down rather than say um… nose dive it into the sea?

You could write a 9/11 fantasy book with your ideas, though being illogical and unsupported it may be quite offensive to those concerned with the subject.  My suggestion would be to cease and desist with your current theory – it doesn’t work whatsoever.

[bee]

I know you would like me to go away and shut up...but why should I?

I am after the truth. In a simple Occam's Razor type way and not getting bogged down with all the headgames.

Q24, on 24 December 2011 - 01:15 PM, said:

The ‘orders still stand’ episode does not fit your theory considering the aide who provided Cheney radar updates of the plane approaching their location in Washington.

'approaching' does not mean it would be allowed to hit the Pentagon..

The US Defence Headquarters

Quote

Sorry bee, your theory is completely nonsensical in far too many areas to mention but…

If they took control of the aircraft by remote in your theory then why take it out to sea rather than say err… land it?

because in the chaos and panic on the day...quick decisions were made and I expect a lengthy Hostage situation
was not wanted with everything else going on...and not knowing what else was coming.

And a hostage situation could have ended up with everyone being killed anyway..in the full glare of the media?


  

Quote

If they took control of the aircraft by remote in your theory and wanted to dispose of it for whatever reason then why the need for a shoot down rather than say um… nose dive it into the sea?

because it was better to blast it to smithereens than have big chunks possibly turn up at some point?

Quote

You could write a 9/11 fantasy book with your ideas, though being illogical and unsupported it may be quite offensive to those concerned with the subject.

Offensive!!! What could be more offensive than your Inside Job theory?



  

Quote

My suggestion would be to cease and desist with your current theory – it doesn’t work whatsoever.

I beg to differ....




edit to add my thread on the subject for anyone who might be interested

http://www.unexplain...1



.

Edited by bee, 24 December 2011 - 02:18 PM.

[Q24]

bee, on 24 December 2011 - 02:09 PM, said:

I know you would like me to go away and shut up...but why should I?

Aw, not at all… I’d just like you to give your theory some credibility and foundation in the real world.

bee, on 24 December 2011 - 02:09 PM, said:

'approaching' does not mean it would be allowed to hit the Pentagon..

The whole point in the ‘orders still stand’ episode is that Cheney was in a position to ensure the aircraft reached the Pentagon.

And your idea still doesn’t make sense…

If the plane was approaching Washington as reported shortly prior the Pentagon crash time then it would have taken some twenty minutes to gain control and actually get it out to sea… by which time it is known that the fighters were no longer out at sea but over the Pentagon, prepared to intercept Flight 93 inland if need be.

bee, on 24 December 2011 - 02:09 PM, said:

because in the chaos and panic on the day...quick decisions were made and I expect a lengthy Hostage situation
was not wanted with everything else going on...and not knowing what else was coming.

And a hostage situation could have ended up with everyone being killed anyway..in the full glare of the media?

1)  The idea that a decision was taken to commit everyone to death in your theory rather than even attempt a rescue is irrational.

- “Sir, we have control of the aircraft, where shall I bring it down?”

- “The FBI don’t know what’s coming next!  Look, just take the aircraft out to sea and we’ll blow it to smithereens – problem solved.”

- “Sir, what about the passengers, what will we say?”

- “Never mind the passengers!  Now I gotta get on the phone.. get me some explosives planted in the Pentagon.. ship some plane parts in from the local museum.. coerce some ‘eyewitnesses’.. a hundred or so should do it.. make sure the ASCE are onboard.. and light poles.. cut down the light poles and stick ‘em in the road.. make it look like a plane came that way.. oh and call in that taxi driver, agent England..”

- “Sir, are you sure you don’t just want me to land the plane?”

- “That’s an order damnit!”

bee, you don’t even believe this    

I’m only responding because I’m bored.


2)  The idea that the hijackers could kill everyone onboard the aircraft in your theory is also irrational.  As soon as they attempted systematically stabbing everyone onboard they would be overwhelmed.

bee, on 24 December 2011 - 02:09 PM, said:

because it was better to blast it to smithereens than have big chunks possibly turn up at some point?

The idea that a missile would blast the aircraft to “smithereens” is mistaken – real life is not like where they blow-up the Death Star, an aircraft is not going to be blasted into its component parts or atoms.

bee, on 24 December 2011 - 02:09 PM, said:

Offensive!!! What could be more offensive than your Inside Job theory?

In my mind, one that is both irrational and unsupported.  It is creating an alternative theory in defiance of all evidence and logic just for the sake of it and trivialises seriousness of the event and genuine investigation.  The theories I provide are always fit in and around the real-world facts in attempt to divert any offence.  The only saving grace of your theory is that it is so baseless and against sound judgement it can be ignored…

Which is what I’m going to do now.