Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
W Tell

Talking Turkey

901 posts in this topic

Well well... 7 minutes prior to the Pentagon impact, precisely when and where the alleged Flight 77 passed overhead, there is planned a CIA exercie which depicts a civilian airliner, also from Dulles, crashing into a government building. Is the potential (it doesn’t matter whether this potential was realised or not) to clash with and disrupt real world events not obvious? As I said, even the NORAD hijacking exercise was being referenced by controllers near 30 minutes after its cancellation – of course there are potential and meaningful consequences to it; the doubt and delay in thought-processes alone are a factor.

I ask you a simple question - to put an estimated probability on the occurrence of that planned CIA exercise coinciding as it did with real world events, even said I would not argue with the figure you produced. And that is your answer... random namings, lottery millionaires, anything but a straightforward answer to the question. Take a guess – it doesn’t have to be precise, it doesn’t have to be factual, I’m only trying to determine what you think is reasonable. 100 plane crashes, how many do you guess would correspond to the time and place of a comparable exercie? Use the list of exercises we have on record to help. Perhaps you think 50%, 75% or 100%; such “incredible coincidences” occur in every instant? Then say so. I’m not even saying this is important on its own - this was intended to be only the first part of what I was building to – and it would eventually demonstrate 1) the unlikelihood of the Pentagon event in context of the official story and 2) the certainty of the Pentagon event in context of a false flag operation.

Here's my totally bs calculation, heavily biased in your favor, I'll try to look at it from your 'could be' perspective here. Let's look at what are the chances of this exercise being at the specific time and involving these characteristics, if it was random. Let's say the exercise could have been planned for any day in two years, excluding Sundays and the plethora of federal holidays, and round to an even 600 random days to choose from. Let's say that the exercise could happen at any time within 12 hours of each day, I hope excluding a night exercise is reasonable. I'm a little shaky on this step, but let's say you'll count anything within 5 minutes of the exercise start time, so this gives us a 10 minute window around the attack time, so for simplicity and total invalidity's sake, we'll say there's a one in 6 chance of being 'precise' on the minute of the time if the attack nailed the day and hour. Now they were testing the emergency response with this exercise I believe; despite your 'maybes' there doesn't appear to be really much relevance to it being specifically a plane crash, it doesn't look like air traffic control or again whatever functions NRO was doing or was supposed to be doing on 9/11 was the goal of the exercise, it seems to be mostly dealing with building evacuation. This is a bad thing for you in that it reduces the significance of this coincidence as any disruption, actual or reasonably expected, to relevant NRO functions is speculation based on what has been provided, but it's a good thing in this analysis as it's another coincidence. So this adds another variable, so let's say there are a total of 5 'catastrophes' (fire, bomb, asteroid, etc) that could have been used as background. And since you mentioned it, since they chose plane crash, let's say they could have chosen one of five major eastern US airports randomly for this scenario.

So based on that abomination of a probability calculation, with almost every single variable tilted in favor of the 'false flag' scenario and including all kinds of errors and bad assumptions about variable independence, I come up with 1 in 1.08 million of the event planner just randomly coming up with a scenario that mirrored the actual Pentagon attack. With a measurement error varying from many hundreds to thousands of a percent, and is a number that is for entertainment purposes only, I do not have faith in the accuracy of my calculation. 1 in a million, 1 in a 100 thousand, 1 in 10 thousand, regardless, it's your turn (actually, it's been your turn, this is your argument, but hey, happy early holidays!), you can start building now. You can start by explaining why given the vast number of connections available, let alone the latitude you allow when designating a 'hit', that you are startled that something, or somethings even, that had a chance of one in a million at very best of occurring actually occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I come up with 1 in 1.08 million of the event planner just randomly coming up with a scenario that mirrored the actual Pentagon attack.

Thank you.

Or in terms of a percentage, approximately 0.0001%

Next (this one should be more straightforward)...

At the time of 9/11, the Pentagon was in the midst of a major renovation program (scheduled 1999 - 2010) with work to add steel-reinforcement, blast-resistant windows and fire safety measures. This work was to be carried out in five stages to each 'wedge' of the building. By 9/11, work to the first 'wedge' was essentially complete. What is the probability of the aircraft then impacting that one completed segment, thus limiting damage to the building and loss of life?

I’m talking about this: -

Pentagon, a Vulnerable Building, Was Hit in Least Vulnerable Spot

...

But the renovation--estimated to end up costing more than $1 billion--is still less than one-fifth complete.

...

But the video also showed how much worse the damage could have been.

American Airlines Flight 77 struck a portion of the building that had already been renovated. It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes--enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety.

The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows--2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each--that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out.

"This was a terrible tragedy, but I'm here to tell you that if we had not undertaken these efforts in the building, this could have been much, much worse," Evey said. "The fact that they happened to hit an area that we had built so sturdily was a wonderful gift."

The rest of the Pentagon would not have fared as well.

Here we have a “wonderful gift” to add to the prior “incredible coincidence”.

Of all the aircraft, departure airports and flightpaths that could have been chosen, the terrorist plan culminated to impact this one altered part of the building that would cause the least damage.

Can we agree this has a 20% (one in five) chance of occurrence in context of the official story?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time of 9/11, the Pentagon was in the midst of a major renovation program (scheduled 1999 - 2010) with work to add steel-reinforcement, blast-resistant windows and fire safety measures. This work was to be carried out in five stages to each 'wedge' of the building. By 9/11, work to the first 'wedge' was essentially complete. What is the probability of the aircraft then impacting that one completed segment, thus limiting damage to the building and loss of life?

Pentagon, a Vulnerable Building, Was Hit in Least Vulnerable Spot

Least vulnerable? The terrorist pilot fire-walled the throttles to max power in order to slam the airliner into the Pentagon at over 500 mph! That doesn't sound like he wanted to minimize damage by any means. What was the final cost in repairs?

010914-F-8006R-002-1024x667.jpg

You might want to considering the direction from where American 77 approached and add that even the loss of one life is one life too many. The approach was not indicative of an approach flown by an experienced military pilot nor was the approach practical in military terms especially when a straight-forward diving attack would have been appropriate rather than flying the final course of a mission through a forest of light poles and other obstacles after conducting an unnecessary overheard turning manuever.

You have to understand that American Airlines confirmed the B-757 was its aircraft and I even posted its fleet history to make that point very clear.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Least vulnerable?

Yes, the Pentagon was impacted in the one area that had experienced structural reinforcement.

Did you really need to open with such a pointless question after my last post?

What was the final cost in repairs?

Less than it would have been had the aircraft impacted any other segment.

The approach was not indicative of an approach flown by an experienced military pilot nor was the approach practical in military terms especially when a straight-forward diving attack would have been appropriate rather than flying the final course of a mission through a forest of light poles and other obstacles after conducting an unnecessary overheard turning manuever.

The approach of the alleged Flight 77 was consistent with the Wide Area Augmentation System which became available in 2000.

http://www.journalof...emsMonaghan.pdf

You have to understand that American Airlines confirmed the B-757 was its aircraft and I even posted its fleet history to make that point very clear.

I don’t give a monkey’s what American Airlines ‘confirmed’ without a check of the physical debris. You must understand that it’s frankly ridiculous you put forward anyone’s assumption, including American Airlines', as ‘proof’ of identification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

Or in terms of a percentage, approximately 0.0001%

Next (this one should be more straightforward)...

At the time of 9/11, the Pentagon was in the midst of a major renovation program (scheduled 1999 - 2010) with work to add steel-reinforcement, blast-resistant windows and fire safety measures. This work was to be carried out in five stages to each 'wedge' of the building. By 9/11, work to the first 'wedge' was essentially complete. What is the probability of the aircraft then impacting that one completed segment, thus limiting damage to the building and loss of life?

I’m talking about this: -

Pentagon, a Vulnerable Building, Was Hit in Least Vulnerable Spot

...

But the renovation--estimated to end up costing more than $1 billion--is still less than one-fifth complete.

...

But the video also showed how much worse the damage could have been.

American Airlines Flight 77 struck a portion of the building that had already been renovated. It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes--enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety.

The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows--2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each--that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out.

"This was a terrible tragedy, but I'm here to tell you that if we had not undertaken these efforts in the building, this could have been much, much worse," Evey said. "The fact that they happened to hit an area that we had built so sturdily was a wonderful gift."

The rest of the Pentagon would not have fared as well.

Here we have a “wonderful gift” to add to the prior “incredible coincidence”.

Of all the aircraft, departure airports and flightpaths that could have been chosen, the terrorist plan culminated to impact this one altered part of the building that would cause the least damage.

Can we agree this has a 20% (one in five) chance of occurrence in context of the official story?

I think a little research into the company in charge of this project is in order too. I think it was British?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t give a monkey’s what American Airlines ‘confirmed’ without a check of the physical debris. You must understand that it’s frankly ridiculous you put forward anyone’s assumption, including American Airlines', as ‘proof’ of identification.

The problem here is that assuming the plane that struck the Pentagon was NOT AA77, then why in the world would AA even claim a loss? It is their plane, they would want to know what happened to their now missing plane.

The fact that radar had tracked 77 from take off to crash at the Pentagon is, in itself a large possibility the plane was inevitably flight 77.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem here is that assuming the plane that struck the Pentagon was NOT AA77, then why in the world would AA even claim a loss? It is their plane, they would want to know what happened to their now missing plane.

There is no problem - it makes no difference to American Airlines’ claim; they are a plane down whatever the circumstances of the loss. Their assumption that the aircraft ended at the Pentagon ticked all the politically correct boxes, but without a physical check of the debris it is only that, assumption.

The fact that radar had tracked 77 from take off to crash at the Pentagon is, in itself a large possibility the plane was inevitably flight 77.

That is not my understanding by far. I’m under the impression there was actually a large gap (a complete blackout during a period of the alleged flight path) in the radar tracking of Flight 77. I’ll dig out the sources if you need them. Of all the 9/11 planes, this one had most opportunity for an undetected switch in flight. Perhaps you have different radar data to anything I’ve seen? But I doubt it.

Not that it ultimately matters – radar is simple to fool. We needed a physical investigation on the plane debris. Anything less is insufficient as proof.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not my understanding by far. I’m under the impression there was actually a large gap (a complete blackout during a period of the alleged flight path) in the radar tracking of Flight 77. I’ll dig out the sources if you need them. Of all the 9/11 planes, this one had most opportunity for an undetected switch in flight. Perhaps you have different radar data to anything I’ve seen? But I doubt it.

Not that it ultimately matters – radar is simple to fool. We needed a physical investigation on the plane debris. Anything less is insufficient as proof.

I concede my statement, having looked over the radar information, there was a 9 minute gap in which there was radar blackout. The radar data I was looking at was a reconstruction based on the FDR data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the Pentagon was impacted in the one area that had experienced structural reinforcement.

What difference does that make?

Less than it would have been had the aircraft impacted any other segment.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever! If the Hani wanted to minimized damage he wouldn't have struck the Pentagon in the first place, much less, fire-wall the throttles to max power in order to strike the Pentagon at over 500 mph! That doesn't sound like a technique to use in order to minimize damage to a particular structure.

I don’t give a monkey’s what American Airlines ‘confirmed’ without a check of the physical debris.

You should!! After all, the B-757 belonged to American Airlines, operator of American 77.

You must understand that it’s frankly ridiculous you put forward anyone’s assumption, including American Airlines', as ‘proof’ of identification.

I don't think you heard me straight before.

Each part of an aircraft has part and/or serial numbers stamped on them and from those numbers, each part of the airframe can be identified using the aircraft technical manual and ordering system. I kept part and serial numbers on record of each airframe and engine component my workers handled and from each of those numbers, I could have tracked every aircraft those components were installed to anywhere in the world and identify the mechanics who installed those parts and the date those parts were installed.

It is very clear to me that you do not possess to knowledge needed to even know what you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The approach of the alleged Flight 77 was consistent with the Wide Area Augmentation System which became available in 2000.

http://www.journalof...emsMonaghan.pdf

Do you even understand what you have posted? Once again, you have allowed yourself to be duped by that article. Did you even know that in some cases, pilots allow the airliners to control themselves? In case you didn't know, such technology is old news

From your own link:

In addition to the 64 people killed aboard the plane, 125 civilians and military personnel died from the impact and resulting inferno.

But the renovation--estimated to end up costing more than $1 billion--is still less than one-fifth complete. On top of that, it will cost at least $300 million to repair the damage from the attack, officials estimate. If plans for the remodeling go forward on schedule, it won't be done until 2014.

Apparently, you didn't read the rest of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no problem - it makes no difference to American Airlines’ claim; they are a plane down whatever the circumstances of the loss. Their assumption that the aircraft ended at the Pentagon ticked all the politically correct boxes, but without a physical check of the debris it is only that, assumption.

That is moot! You don't understand how the tracking process works in the world of aviation.

That is not my understanding by far. I’m under the impression there was actually a large gap (a complete blackout during a period of the alleged flight path) in the radar tracking of Flight 77. I’ll dig out the sources if you need them. Of all the 9/11 planes, this one had most opportunity for an undetected switch in flight.

In the article you posted, it said that 64 people were killed aboard the aircraft that struck the Pentagon, which clearly shows no switch occurred by any means. In the documentary shown the other day, even though the transponder was tampered with, only Information pertaining to that aircraft had disappeared from the radar screen, but the radar return from the aircraft remained on the screen despite what 9/11 conspiracist have mistakenly claimed.

As I have stated many times in the past turning off the transponder does not make an aircraft invisible to radar. In fact, birds do not have transponders and yet, they can be detected on radar as well. 9/11 conspiracist got this false notion into thinking that turning off a transponder will make an aircraft disappear off the radar screen, but that is not the case. What does happen is that information on the original target disappears and the aircraft gets lost among many other airborne radar targets, which makes it extremely difficult to track.

Remember, the B-757 is not a stealth aircraft.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no problem - it makes no difference to American Airlines’ claim; they are a plane down whatever the circumstances of the loss.

And the only B-757 of American Airlines that crashed that day was American 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.

Their assumption that the aircraft ended at the Pentagon ticked all the politically correct boxes, but without a physical check of the debris it is only that, assumption.

Are you implying that American Airlines did not know that the B-757 that crashed at the Pentagon was its own? It is peculiar that you would say such a thing when American Airlines, along with the Boeing Co., sent the required information to investigators that pertained ONLY to the FDR of American 77.

What it is, you do not possessed the needed knowledge to understand how things work in the real world of aviation.

That is not my understanding by far. I’m under the impression there was actually a large gap (a complete blackout during a period of the alleged flight path) in the radar tracking of Flight 77. I’ll dig out the sources if you need them. Of all the 9/11 planes, this one had most opportunity for an undetected switch in flight.

Another misconception on your part because you do not possess the needed knowledge to understand what you are saying. What have I said about the B-757 not being a stealthy aircraft and what have I said about ATC radars with the ability to track birds, which do not carry transponders? Did ATC notify the C-130 pilot to track a target headed its way, which was identified by the C-130 pilot as a B-757? It shows that ATC was in fact, tracking American 77 toward the Pentagon.

Please explain to us in detail, how non-stealthy aircraft, whether squawking or not, can be switched in flight?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pentagon searchers encounter grisly scenes

WASHINGTON — On Tuesday, Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams witnessed a combat zone for the first time in his 11 years of service. He never imagined it would be inside the Pentagon. One of the first recovery personnel to enter the crippled headquarters building after a hijacked Boeing 757 smashed into it, the urban search-and-rescue specialist found a gruesome sight.

When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

http://usatoday30.us...n-usat.htm#more

Why would anyone suggest that American 77 was switched in flight and not account for passengers and crew of that aircraft?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What difference does that make?

The difference that the one reinforced segment of the Pentagon made was in reducing damage and loss of life in the impact compared to a non-reinforced area. That was already made clear in my post #827 just above. Why ask a question that has clearly already been answered?

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever! If the Hani wanted to minimized damage he wouldn't have struck the Pentagon in the first place, much less, fire-wall the throttles to max power in order to strike the Pentagon at over 500 mph! That doesn't sound like a technique to use in order to minimize damage to a particular structure.

Of course what I said makes sense – had the aircraft impacted the non-reinforced area, the damage and loss of life would have been greater. What are you finding difficult to process about this? It’s a very simple point to which you are responding with inane questions and statements.

Also, the perpetrators would want the attack, and features therein, to be genuine, firstly to provide the pretext for their longstanding geopolitical aims and secondly to test effectiveness of the Pentagon reinforcement works.

You should!! After all, the B-757 belonged to American Airlines, operator of American 77.

No, I don’t give a monkey’s what you or American Airlines assume here without a check of the physical debris.

I don't think you heard me straight before.

Each part of an aircraft has part and/or serial numbers stamped on them and from those numbers, each part of the airframe can be identified using the aircraft technical manual and ordering system. I kept part and serial numbers on record of each airframe and engine component my workers handled and from each of those numbers, I could have tracked every aircraft those components were installed to anywhere in the world and identify the mechanics who installed those parts and the date those parts were installed.

It is very clear to me that you do not possess to knowledge needed to even know what you are talking about.

I could swear because we have been over this half a dozen times already, we come to the same conclusion every time, and then you later repeat the same thing every time. It’s simple. For all the above the issue is this: you, nor anyone else, have ever inspected the debris to carry out such an identification.

Do you even understand what you have posted? Once again, you have allowed yourself to be duped by that article. Did you even know that in some cases, pilots allow the airliners to control themselves? In case you didn't know, such technology is old news

That demonstrates my understanding incorrect, how? If anything, congratulations, your comments back up the potential for remote guided flight.

Apparently, you didn't read the rest of the story.

This, and the link excerpt you quoted, has no bearing whatsoever on my text you were responding to about WAAS.

That is moot! You don't understand how the tracking process works in the world of aviation.

Yes I do understand how the tracking/identification process works ‘in the world of aviation’. In particular, in air crash investigation the process is generally through the record of part serial number which you described above. However, disturbingly this process was never carried out by you, nor anyone else, in the case of the alleged Flight 77, nor any of the 9/11 aircraft.

In the documentary shown the other day, even though the transponder was tampered with, only Information pertaining to that aircraft had disappeared from the radar screen, but the radar return from the aircraft remained on the screen despite what 9/11 conspiracist have mistakenly claimed.

As I have stated many times in the past turning off the transponder does not make an aircraft invisible to radar. In fact, birds do not have transponders and yet, they can be detected on radar as well. 9/11 conspiracist got this false notion into thinking that turning off a transponder will make an aircraft disappear off the radar screen, but that is not the case. What does happen is that information on the original target disappears and the aircraft gets lost among many other airborne radar targets, which makes it extremely difficult to track.

Remember, the B-757 is not a stealth aircraft.

Showing your extensive lack of knowledge on the subject, skyeagle. You should take a leaf from the book of RaptorBites who had the sense and decency to research what I said. The fact is that Flight 77 did disappear from both primary and secondary radar screens during flight – for a period, there was no radar return whatsoever. All references thereafter from official sources on the day (ATC, the Secret Service, PEOC) concern an unidentified aircraft – and the lack of physical identification, to the skeptic, means that is what it has remained to the present day.

And the only B-757 of American Airlines that crashed that day was American 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.

Why are you responding twice over to the exact same text as in your previous post? I didn’t even bother reading the rest of this post – one response was quite enough.

Why would anyone suggest that American 77 was switched in flight and not account for passengers and crew of that aircraft?

The aircraft can be switched and the passengers and crew accounted for. It is key to remember there is no process or audit of collection and transit of the remains identified, which was not carried out on site, i.e. there is nothing that proves the passenger remains came from the Pentagon at all.

About your article excerpt. There is no physical/photographic or direct witness (quoted) evidence that any passengers were found “still strapped into their seats”. It also defies logic that the impact should essentially break the aircraft to its component pieces, yet human bodies from the same aircraft should survive somewhat intact. The article may be making use of journalistic licence based upon something that Sgt. Mark Williams said about ‘victims still in their seats’ (which they were – many of the office staff killed).

I look forward to you coming back with more inane questions, statements, double responses and irrelevant links. I probably won't respond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course what I said makes sense – had the aircraft impacted the non-reinforced area, the damage and loss of life would have been greater. What are you finding difficult to process about this? It’s a very simple point to which you are responding with inane questions and statements.

Sky's seems a perfectly good point to me. If conspirators want to minimize damage, there are simpler options than trying to hit the bit of the building that's been reinforced. Sky's suggestion of a lower impact speed would be very effective, but why hit the building at all? Why not a near miss? Why not a less valuable building? Why not claim something similar to Flight 93 and drop it in the sea?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky's seems a perfectly good point to me. If conspirators want to minimize damage, there are simpler options than trying to hit the bit of the building that's been reinforced. Sky's suggestion of a lower impact speed would be very effective, but why hit the building at all? Why not a near miss? Why not a less valuable building? Why not claim something similar to Flight 93 and drop it in the sea?

Why do the conspirators want to minimize damage in the first place? The whole point of needing a demolition of the towers is because they needed the casualty and damage levels to reach the level of Pearl Harbor according to the supposed significance of the PNAC document. Now they do the exact opposite and pull their punches when attacking the Pentagon? This seems extremely post-hoc and doesn't seem supportable without resorting to 'maybe' or 'could be'. No matter where the Pentagon was struck you can look at what was located there and assume there was intent to hit it at that specific location. If the Pentagon was struck in a location that maximized casualties, then the story changes and that becomes the conspirators intent. Q's complaints about sky's 'assumptions' seems pretty hypocritical when he simultaneously is making tons himself.

Q, as far as your probability stuff, fine whatever, 1 in 5 chance that the Pentagon would be struck there for the sake of your argument. I was not expecting you to move on to another entirely different 'coincidence', I don't think you've demonstrated anything on the coincidental NRO exercise yet so please formulate your argument at this point just using these two 'coincidences'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no problem - it makes no difference to American Airlines’ claim; they are a plane down whatever the circumstances of the loss. Their assumption that the aircraft ended at the Pentagon ticked all the politically correct boxes, but without a physical check of the debris it is only that, assumption.

That is not my understanding by far. I’m under the impression there was actually a large gap (a complete blackout during a period of the alleged flight path) in the radar tracking of Flight 77. I’ll dig out the sources if you need them. Of all the 9/11 planes, this one had most opportunity for an undetected switch in flight. Perhaps you have different radar data to anything I’ve seen? But I doubt it.

Not that it ultimately matters – radar is simple to fool. We needed a physical investigation on the plane debris. Anything less is insufficient as proof.

Radar is very easily fooled, especially 'from the inside'. For example, if a company had a contract that allowed it 'inside' radar systems.

"injects" are commonly used in training situations, 'from the inside'.

I have long considered the radar data to be suspect and unreliable in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do the conspirators want to minimize damage in the first place?

Why suffer their own country more casualties and damage than necessary? You know, with planning we can do this without being excessive. The target of a ‘Pearl Harbor’ scale was achieved with the WTC attack. Though the Pentagon event still had to take place in order to present the attack on symbols of the U.S. economy and military – an evermore effective pretext in driving the foreign/war ideology.

The whole point of needing a demolition of the towers is because they needed the casualty and damage levels to reach the level of Pearl Harbor according to the supposed significance of the PNAC document.

Yes.

Edit: Actually no, not the "whole point" - there was more to the WTC target selection and demolition than that - but sure, a main point.

Now they do the exact opposite and pull their punches when attacking the Pentagon?

No, it was not the “exact opposite”. Damage restriction was always in mind and present throughout. The punches, like at the Pentagon, were pulled in the attack on the WTC – the aim was only to achieve a scale of destruction comparable to ‘Pearl Harbor’ and apparently present an attack on America’s institutions including of a military nature. Perhaps you are not aware that the WTC attack could have been far more severe in casualty level with the most minor and obvious of alteration?

Come on LG, let’s do a fun thought exercise. Let’s be for cave dwelling terrorists for a moment, wanting to cause maximum casualties. In addition we can run this thought exercise taking the role of those within the U.S. system, wanting to provide a pretext based upon a restricted level of casualties. In each case, where are we gonna hit the towers, and at what time? High up and at 8:46, before the general 9-5 working day has started? Or low as possible to prevent escape and at peak work time? What actually happened? So who are we planning this, based on the result? – cave dwelling terrorists or those within the U.S. system? You know it, don’t you.

Had the aircraft impacted a mid-floor at mid-morning then we could now be talking of tenfold, 30,000, killed! This is fact determined since (I’ll pull out the references if you need) and which anyone could foresee. Then the Pentagon is hit in the one largely unoccupied and reinforced area. Damage restriction throughout. There is no contradiction here – the necessary was done without being excessive.

If the Pentagon was struck in a location that maximized casualties, then the story changes and that becomes the conspirators intent.

Please don’t speculate about my argument to make yourself feel better – just ask me if you would really like to know. Had the Pentagon been impacted in any of the four out of five segments that maximised casualties, I wouldn’t think a thing of it.

Q, as far as your probability stuff, fine whatever, 1 in 5 chance that the Pentagon would be struck there for the sake of your argument. I was not expecting you to move on to another entirely different 'coincidence', I don't think you've demonstrated anything on the coincidental NRO exercise yet so please formulate your argument at this point just using these two 'coincidences'.

Yes because it is once you add the ‘coincidences’ up to give the full picture (or rather, multiply them as we do for multiple occurrences), that is when we realise the improbability of the complete event in context of the official story. How likely is it that the CIA/NRO planned an exercise that mimicked the time, location and crash of the alleged Flight 77, and that impact occurred at the one segment of the Pentagon which would restrict casualties and damage, and etc, and etc, and etc... we could go on and on to considerable degree with such coincidences and peculiarities here if you would allow. And these are not just any old coincidence as you have tried to present, but meaningful coincidence; linked to and having potential bearing on 9/11 events. The result of this complete sequence occurring in context of the official story is astronomical.

Next we ask, what is the probability of this all occurring in context of a false flag operation? Would we set out to potentially delay the air defense response, restrict casualties, etc, etc, etc (which we haven’t got onto). Yes we would – the probability of this all occurring in context of a false flag operation is extremely high.

And that is my argument – one scenario relies on a belief in the astronomically improbable, and the other accounts for events in a way that is probable, the result of reason and intent – the latter scenario of which the logical and objective mind is more inclined to accept.

Edited by Q24
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radar is very easily fooled, especially 'from the inside'.

Apparently, the radar was not fooled. After all, ATC notified the C-130 pilot where American 77 was and the aircraft was right where ATC said it was. In that respect, the radar wasn't fooled at all and it is very clear you do not understand radar technology either. :no:

Were you aware that radar can not only has the ability to detect birds, but differentiate between bird species? Were you also aware that the F-117 stealth fighter was not totally invisible to radar? Were you aware that the B-757 is not a stealth aircraft?

Now, take into consideration what I have just said and begin placing the pieces of the puzzle together to form a picture in order to understand that if you don't know what you are talking about, it is best to remain quiet rather than to cococt up another controversy.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Actually no, not the "whole point" - there was more to the WTC target selection and demolition than that - but sure, a main point.

If you are going to claim the WTC buildings were brought down by explosive demolition, you have to show evidence and it has been over 11 years since the 911 attacks and yet, no explosions are seen nor heard on video as the WTC buildings collapse nor captured by seismic monitors in the area nor were explosives recovered within the rubble of the WTC builds nor found at the Fresh Kills landfill.

Apparently, there is no evidence that explosives were used, which explains why after more than 11 years, no evidence of explosives has surfaced and why demolition experts, who have combed the WTC rubble, have ruled out explosives.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on LG, let’s do a fun thought exercise. Let’s be for cave dwelling terrorists for a moment, wanting to cause maximum casualties. In addition we can run this thought exercise taking the role of those within the U.S. system, wanting to provide a pretext based upon a restricted level of casualties. In each case, where are we gonna hit the towers, and at what time? High up and at 8:46, before the general 9-5 working day has started? Or low as possible to prevent escape and at peak work time? What actually happened? So who are we planning this, based on the result? – cave dwelling terrorists or those within the U.S. system? You know it, don’t you.

You can argue anything with this sort of post-event logic. Let's try my confirmation bias instead of yours:

We are terrorists who have had a few flying lessons, but are still a bit shaky at controlling the aircraft. We don't want to miss the target altogether, we don't want to hit the wrong building, so we aim at one of the towers, mid way between the top of the tower and the top of the next highest building.

Which is pretty much where the aircraft hit.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radar is very easily fooled, especially 'from the inside'. For example, if a company had a contract that allowed it 'inside' radar systems.

"injects" are commonly used in training situations, 'from the inside'.

I have long considered the radar data to be suspect and unreliable in this case.

Considering that radar data isn't the "only" data available to investigators, you are only relying on cherry picking evidence to confirm your theory. Outside of radar data, there is eye witness reports, path of destruction, crash debris, etc.

Radar data isn't the only thing used to confirm a crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that radar data isn't the "only" data available to investigators, you are only relying on cherry picking evidence to confirm your theory. Outside of radar data, there is eye witness reports, path of destruction, crash debris, etc.

Radar data isn't the only thing used to confirm a crash.

We absolutely agree on that general point, however I would refine it to say ATC radar is not used to confirm a crash, it is used to confirm flight. Even if the target is lost on radar, that does not necessarily mean that it crashed. It means only that radar is not painting the aircraft and/or transponder.

As I said in my post that you quoted, I have long considered the radar data regarding the events of 11 September to be suspect and unreliable, mainly because of injects and manipulation of radar systems in the name of Vigilant Guardian. That various companies like MITRE and PTech had access to both FAA and military radar systems strengthens the case for manipulation of radar data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We absolutely agree on that general point, however I would refine it to say ATC radar is not used to confirm a crash, it is used to confirm flight. Even if the target is lost on radar, that does not necessarily mean that it crashed. It means only that radar is not painting the aircraft and/or transponder.

As I said in my post that you quoted, I have long considered the radar data regarding the events of 11 September to be suspect and unreliable, mainly because of injects and manipulation of radar systems in the name of Vigilant Guardian. That various companies like MITRE and PTech had access to both FAA and military radar systems strengthens the case for manipulation of radar data.

Only because the radar information does not conform with your theory BR.

Like I said in the post you quoted.

Radar is not the only thing used to identify a crash.

Outside of radar data, there is eye witness reports, path of destruction, crash debris, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly what swan said. I assume since you are offering up your fun thought exercise that you have no objections to 'the official story' based on piloting skills of our hijackers, or lack thereof, since you are proposing a scenario where they are flying these planes lower apparently snaking around buildings in a major metropolitan area? If they could pull this off, they could have saved themselves the whole demolition trouble if they could have just aimed below the half-way point, then when it collapsed it would have been complete and full compliance with your (mis-)application of Newton, the upper block would be larger than the lower and the 'equal damage' would still leave some of the upper block intact.

You are going the entirely wrong direction with your probability argument, you were on the right track when you started to talk about all the other scenarios that you would count as 'hits'. You can string together any series of probabilities (assuming they are less than 100%) and the overall probability of anything happening the exact way it did is 'astronomical'. The chances of me getting to work at the exact second I did is astronomical, especially if we break it down and look at the probabilities of me being stopped by the sequence of red lights I hit at the exact second I did. Shuffle a deck of cards and then flip them up one at a time; the odds of the deck being in that exact order is 1 in a number larger than the number of atoms in the universe. The chances of the two specific people who won the Powerball lottery a few weeks ago choosing the winning numbers is 1 in 175 million^2. Do you think it was fixed then? 'Meaningfulness' is a subjective term. One of my high school classmates has the exact same birthdate as I do; it's a meaningless coincidence unless we are evaluating the question of whether we are actually twins and then it's meaningful. Did the assignment of 'meaningfulness' in this case change any of those probabilities?

Please don’t speculate about my argument to make yourself feel better – just ask me if you would really like to know. Had the Pentagon been impacted in any of the four out of five segments that maximised casualties, I wouldn’t think a thing of it.

Ha ha, yes, of course there is no hypocrisy involved when you ask me not to speculate about your argument but you speculate about what would make me 'feel better'. I feel fine thanks. Inconsistency, thy name is Q24.

To your 'point', what is your evidence (not speculation, not what you can imagine, not what could be) that the plotters wanted to limit casualties and damage at the Pentagon? Don't offer up maybes without first applying that same standard against your case.

What do you mean you wouldn't think anything of the Pentagon being hit where it maximized casualties, you should. You're making the case, more like 'assumption' at this point, that they wanted to limit casualties, and now you are not going to be concerned if they hit somewhere that did not achieve that objective? Why wouldn't that be evidence that is was not a conspiracy? Why isn't this 'heads you win, tails I lose'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.