It all depends on what you mean by "dive". It doesn't necessarily mean a full power, shake the plane and tear the wings off diveOriginally Posted by YardRat
Plus, the Pentagon from above presents a huge target.
The approach from the side isn't as well as being complicated by the ground and other things in the way.
boisterous hubris, arrogance, self deception, conspiracy, mud slinging mixed with a heavy dose of self righteousness.
Gibberish.
People do things for reasons.
Oh, sorry, I forgot.
They're Muslims so they're crazy and don't need reasons.
Strawman.
http://angrywhitedude.com/2009/05/th...-off-his-unit/
Have you ever flown? Also, if you could answer my other question it would be appreciated.
Long you live and high you fly And smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry And all you touch and all you see Is all your life will ever be.
Yes, and I didn't get your other question. Could you rephrase?
Is there evidence that suggests to you that the resulting 'tactic' was the original intent?
You obviously are questioning why the 'pilots' would take such a round-a-bout route into the Pentagon...are you sure that specific 'flight pattern' was their intent from the beginning?
And? Someone's opinion is a universal truth?
- - - Updated - - -
Shart's reasoning is the the Pentagon was the target? How does he know that? Perhaps he's CIA.
MST3KBillsfan (11-12-2012)
We can only presume that if their intent was to crash into the Pentagon, they would do it in the quickest and most efficient fashion.
Wouldn't you?
Why?
There's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip.
Tsk tsk tsk.
You'd think a bean-counter would understand this.
Why would he spend 30+ minutes flying all the way back to Washington when he could have hit Cincinnati in minutes? Now, I don't know why he chose to circle down as opposed to nosing over. But you're making this enormous logical leap that because he didn't, therefore he MUST have known that he wouldn't be shot down and therefore CONSPIRACY.
Jesus, discussing this with you is like arguing with a goldfish. Every time I have to restate the same things. Do we know the Pentagon was his primary target? I haven't seen anything to suggest that. So he goes lower looking for something like the White House, sees the Pentagon, and goes for it instead.Get low enough to spot the Pentagon? Are you serious?
Based on utterly nothing. So you think that even though they had control of Flight 77, they would land it and replace it with a completely different plane? And there would be no evidence of Flight 77 anywhere else? And then they would plant all the evidence at the Pentagon? That's plausible?Sorry, but I do know what constitutes tracking a plane and as I said, 77 wasn't tracked the whole way, so it is plausible that these airliners dropped off radar and were replaced by another plane.
Why the hell would they do that? it accomplishes absolutely nothing.
You can't have it both ways, Shiva. Either the turn was a steep, high-speed difficult maneuver, or it was a slow looping descent that the pilot made without fear of interception. Again, you're just throwing crap at the wall.Also, the turn is a difficult maneuver
Based on?and remote-control is absolutely possible.
20 pages into a thread where you've insulted all comers, you tell me to tone down the schoolyard taunts. You love playing the victim. "Why won't these racist dumbasses have a honest conversation with meeeeeeeeee?"So, you've decided to cry about me insulting you and then justify it by claiming I was crying about you insulting me? Cute.
Has it occurred to me? Of course. I can't know what was in each individual hijacker's head. But I haven't seen any evidence that could be explained by the official story followed by Bush seizing the opportunity to get his war on.Don't be silly. Has the possibility Bin Laden is working for someone never occurred to you? Really? He worked for the CIA for ten years. His family had done business with Bushco from at least the mid 70's when guess who? was CIA director.
First they didn't participate, they were just mouth pieces. Now they didn't participate enough. smh. Why don't you ask them who actually did the testing then?Oh, I read, and unlike you, I comprehend. Surely you're smart enough to understand what, and what not, "participated" and "actively involved" mean?
Planting hundreds of DNA samples clean enough to fool all these professionals spread between two separate crash sites hundreds of miles apart? Yes, that is thoroughly unprecedented. And even back off your claim that they are being threatened or conspiring, you're accusing them of being staggeringly negligent at their jobs.I am not accusing THEM of anything. What I am questioning is the EXTENT of their "participation" and "active involvement" and the possibility the evidence could be corrupted before they became involved. After all, people planting evidence is hardly unknown in the history of the world.
"Ignorance loves company. The truly stupid resent those who are not and won’t be satisfied until they’ve burned all the books, torn down the libraries, closed the universities, and made it impossible for anyone else not to share their own proud ignorance." -Fred Clark, Patheos.com
No one can actually, because your premise is a fantasy. We can only presume one thing? Why? Or are you just making things up?
But that's not your contention, is it? Aren't you insisting that the round-a-bout flight path wasn't the quickest and most efficient?
Why they would use a plane from NY makes no sense as far as quick and efficient. Go with a plane from Washington for Christ's sake.
The flights that hit the twin towers departed from Logan, the one that hit the Pentagon departed from Dulles, and Flight 93 left from Newark.
Again, you are exposing your ignorance.
In order to "get there from here," you have to be able to "get there from here."
Your view is like the view of a flight sim computer player, and is in gross conflict with what it takes, which is not to say it is that hard, it was simply beyond the capability of the guy flying this.
And knock of the "only a movie maker," crap. I brought it up to point out that I would never get into a guessing contest about how to do that, nor post ridiculous theories or questions easily answered about something I knew nothing about, and believe me, you know nothing about this, and neither do people who fly small airplanes at low speed. So lose the whiny component.
Anyway, to clear up yet another of your misconceptions, your thought process doesn't include all the facts, so your opinion is incorrect. Yu know, the false premise thing?
Let's assume for a minute that the original intent was to hit the Pentagon. Nobody knows that. What we know is that was was the ultimate choice. It would have been far more destructive to hit the two other very famous buildings in that area. One of them would have been very hard to do unless you really know where to look.
Anyway, as you point out, the Pentagon is very large. What it absolutely is not, is tall.
In fact, is is quite "short."
Approaching from the west, which he did, you pass over suburbs with much taller buildings. If you look at the altitude profile, it would be very, very difficult to see the Pentagon until you were very nearly over it. In fact, probably not possible.
(More evidence that it wasn't an electronic/autopilot/remote control attack by the way. Those use gps, ground mapping and a host of very advanced navigation techniques, and they don't make unnecessary turns).
What he did, is he flew far enough east until he saw it, finally being in a line of sight where the much taller buildings n the western suburbs were no longer obscuring it.
At that point it was too late to simply dive at it. He would have overshot, even if he knew what he was doing, which he didn't based on the FDR data-the thing is flown very sloppily.
Anyway, to solve the "can't get there from here problem," he turned right, reacquired it in the turn, then lowered the nose and rammed the thrust levers forward.
What you keep posting are false premises based on a lack of knowledge with the area, the physics involved, and the techniques required, and that's the problem.
Pleasing you means educating you. But even that isn't possible, because it is not possible to get through your ill informed conclusions. You are too corrupted, and far too stubborn.
Your issue.
Last edited by gameboy; 11-12-2012 at 11:12 AM.
MST3KBillsfan (11-12-2012)
I don't understand how the big looping turn proves it was remote controlled, or at the very least, prove that it wasn't man controlled.
Why would something that is remote controlled need to do a big looping turn? Why wouldn't they just program it to go straight at the Pentagon?
If it's the easiest way to do it, surely the remote control would follow a direct route.
The big looping turn actually lends credence to the story that he overshot the pentagon, looped around and went right at it.
Now, now, you just bring up good points the evidence supports. Shiva is an America hating film director who has helped make dozens of b rated straight to DVD films.
The Angry White Dude is part of "The Onion" isn't it?
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof ~ Christopher Hitchens
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote