[saturninus.ribb]

It is common knowledge they all had flight training right here in the US. All they had to learn to do was hit a target which makes training time very short, no flaps or gear or landing lights or radio or rules & regs etc...just hit a target and, as whitestreet says, don't stall. There wasn't even much chance of stalling since they didn't have to worry about slowing down and the angle of attack was always nose down with increasing speeds.

Makes it a little more believable when you throw all that in.

Still, pretty friggin good aim! One little slip up and they would've irretrievably missed the target and likely would not have recovered for another go. I've often wonder if that isn't what happened in Pennsylvania - just couldn't figure out how to haul it around for another go.

[bebeacc]

Dictators, by definition, do not come with a shelf life.

Dictators served specific and limited terms under Roman law in the era of the Republic (Cinncinatus being the most famous of them). And it is specifically this era to which many American political intellectuals have asserted that is the inspiration for the American Republic.

And there is nothing of the character of dictators that require a "for life" component. Indeed, the tin-pot African model of dictator-for-life is the exception rather than the rule.

There are many reasons to be critical of the Bush administration. But this sort of thing weakens the legitimate criticisms, in my view.

Yes, that is my view and the reason I do critique these kind of wild viewpoints - they just contaiminate the rational and justified critiques of Bush.

[phinno13]

It is common knowledge they all had flight training right here in the US. All they had to learn to do was hit a target which makes training time very short, no flaps or gear or landing lights or radio or rules & regs etc...just hit a target and, as whitestreet says, don't stall. There wasn't even much chance of stalling since they didn't have to worry about slowing down and the angle of attack was always nose down with increasing speeds.

Makes it a little more believable when you throw all that in.

Still, pretty friggin good aim! One little slip up and they would've irretrievably missed the target and likely would not have recovered for another go. I've often wonder if that isn't what happened in Pennsylvania - just couldn't figure out how to haul it around for another go.

Once the plane is in the air, it's a breeze to fly. Hell, I had no flight experience and yet the first time I was in an airplane, the pilot (a friend) let me take the yoke. He instructed me as we flew along so if I could do it, then anyone who's had minimal flight instruction would be able to do it, just as you said.

[yQvpyNt3]

Still, pretty friggin good aim! One little slip up and they would've irretrievably missed the target and likely would not have recovered for another go. I've often wonder if that isn't what happened in Pennsylvania - just couldn't figure out how to haul it around for another go.

I don't think it would take extraodinary aim. Those buildings were pretty dang big, and at higher speeds airplanes get more stable. Considering that how big the towers were and how far out the could line up, all they had to do was keep the nose pointed at them. Consider that a better pilot can land consitently on the centerline of a runway - at slower, harder to control speeds.

The Pentagon plane is impressive, because they came in low enough to take out light poles. But that's not really incredible - there is just as much chance that they would be too high or right on level as too low.

Where would the Pennsylvania plane have been aiming for? It'd be pretty hard to miss by far enough that the target wouldn't know.

[XqrkN4a0]

How can you know that a given thing didn't happen? All you can know is that this "loop" you and your friends are part of was not involved... and you have only their word for that...

Not that I believe that the US administration (or the Israelis or anyone else) would orchestrate such a thing... the risks of getting caught would be far too high, nobody would be that stupid.

BET???

And it wouldn't be possible to prove. It is impossible to prove a negetive. If you didn't hear a bell ring, does that prove it didn't ring???

[OixKKcj1]

I'm sorry. I should've kept my mouth shut. I don't want to derail the main topic.
It's not like driving a bus. Larger plain may be more stable but also has more flight controls and electronics - sacrifice education in one, you need a lot more of the other.
They had to either know how to set and manage the path electronically (highly unlikely), or manhandle it all the way in.

Anyone whose tried to land a small plain finds out quickly how difficult it is to line up with something as obvious as a 4,000+ foot runway at least twice as wide as your wingspan. The Boeings that crashed into the towers had a wing span of 156 ft, while the towers were 'only' 209ft wide. Not like they "clipped" those towers.

Granted, they didn't have to worry about such things as speed however, if they'd have missed the towers at that speed with their backgrounds, there probably wouldn't have been any "go around". Again, luck I guess.

I'd say they were either better equipped to fly than we give them credit or they were very lucky to have a relatively calm day and few mistakes.

I haven't added credibility to either argument and I'm shutting up now.

[FrereeDoulley]

This is the kind of stupid shit that is making this website less and less interesting.

Sure.

Tell me to go off and bury my head in the sand as you guys argue and play with idiotic conspiricy theories.

Not that I'll SEE it

[videolkif]

...
The Pentagon plane is impressive, because they came in low enough to take out light poles. But that's not really incredible - there is just as much chance that they would be too high or right on level as too low.

...

Except, I can't let this comment slide.

The possibility of too high or too low are infinitely greater than on target as they both extend infinitely in opposite directions. All kidding aside and I'll tell you why:

A B 757 is a pretty tall plane. When you stand next to one on the ramp (obviously the gear is out), the cockpit looms over head - I'm guessing about 20 feet to the cockpit. Now consider you've never flown one but you have an idea about how far from the ground you are when the gear is out because you got on board at some point while it was on the ground - you have no idea how far away the ground is when the gear is up though! So you'd have to include this in your planning.

I'm guessing the Pentagon is less than 100ft high. It's only about 5 stories right? Anyway, you now have a 20ft tall projectile for a 100 ft tall target which, by the way, is afixed to terra firma and not hanging in the sky. So, if you come in too low, you make a premature smoking hole.

Given that too high and too low extend to infinity in either direction, we have rudimentary landing aid lights called VASI's - this is very basic stuff. But the Pentagon is not equipped with VASI lights.

It's not like the plane skidded in from across the street and dug a ditch to the building, nor did it scrape it's belly across the shingles. Ground floor, nose first - that's pretty good really, all things considered.

100 ft target, 20 ft projectile at 600 mph.
I made ALL this up in my head so ya know...go verify if you like. I'd be interested to see how far off I am anyway.

[Peapeuddedbaw]

Except, I can't let this comment slide.

The possibility of too high or too low are infinitely greater than on target as they both extend infinitely in opposite directions. All kidding aside and I'll tell you why:

A B 757 is a pretty tall plane. When you stand next to one on the ramp (obviously the gear is out), the cockpit looms over head - I'm guessing about 20 feet to the cockpit. Now consider you've never flown one but you have an idea about how far from the ground you are when the gear is out because you got on board at some point while it was on the ground - you have no idea how far away the ground is when the gear is up though! So you'd have to include this in your planning.

I'm guessing the Pentagon is less than 100ft high. It's only about 5 stories right? Anyway, you now have a 20ft tall projectile for a 100 ft tall target which, by the way, is afixed to terra firma and not hanging in the sky. So, if you come in too low, you make a premature smoking hole.

Given that too high and too low extend to infinity in either direction, we have rudimentary landing aid lights called VASI's - this is very basic stuff. But the Pentagon is not equipped with VASI lights.

It's not like the plane skidded in from across the street and dug a ditch to the building, nor did it scrape it's belly across the shingles. Ground floor, nose first - that's pretty good really, all things considered.

100 ft target, 20 ft projectile at 600 mph.
I made ALL this up in my head so ya know...go verify if you like. I'd be interested to see how far off I am anyway.

He (THEY) apparently did a rather effocient job. BTW, did they ever find the engines??? they shouldn't have disinigrated completeely. (Just thought I would throw that in)

[wJswn5l3]

Nope, no airliner hit the Pentagon. Therefore, my colleagues from Station 29 were not working amid the wreckage. These pictures don't really exist:

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Note that there is not really a series of pictures of engine parts, landing gear, etc. in the building there.

Here is a page that does not, repeat not, contain over a dozen eyewitness statements from people who saw the airliner hit the building: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/91...witnesses.html

Please go back to the conspiracy theory now. There is absolutely no evidence that an airliner hit the Pentagon

Matt

[AndyPharmc]

He (THEY) apparently did a rather effocient job. BTW, did they ever find the engines??? they shouldn't have disinigrated completeely. (Just thought I would throw that in)

Well I don't really support a full out conspiracy theory really. Just commenting on things that appear real to me.

[nicktender]

He (THEY) apparently did a rather effocient job. BTW, did they ever find the engines??? they shouldn't have disinigrated completeely. (Just thought I would throw that in)

Pics of the remains of one of the engines inside the Pentagon:

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Matt

[BurdenRobert]

Well I don't really support a full out conspiracy theory really. Just commenting on things that appear real to me.

My question wasn't a dig at you (in case you thought it was). It was a real questioin, regarding another part of the theory.

[overavantstandard]

My question wasn't a dig at you (in case you thought it was). It was a real questioin, regarding another part of the theory.

No offense taken at all. I have very limited knowledge - just offering a little of what I thought seemed rational.

I don't discount conspiracies, just irrationality no matter where it leads.

[legal-advicer]

JHC - in regards to #26 and #28,

I respect what you're saying, and I'm not really trying to argue with you, but I think you overestimate the difficulty of flying one of these things. When I learned to fly I was checked out for solo flight after about 6 hours of instruction in a Cessna. Granted, that was a small Cessna, but I know several airling pilots and they have told me that essentially the mechanics of flying are the same in a big plane. They speed up and slow down much slower, but once they are at flying speed they are pretty easy to fly. I've talked with F-15 pilots who have said the same of fighter jets (the first thing I say to most pilots I meet is "how does that thing fly?")

In regards to the Pentagon crash, too high and too low do extend infinitely, but you are disregarding the pilot's control. I regularly fly small planes a few feet off the ground - they don't just spontaneously change elevation unless there is a bit of wind, and a big plane takes a lot of wind to move it.

Some people even skim their tires on the surface of a lake - that takes some precision. But flying in low isn't that hard.

[BokerokyBan]

The lunatic ravings of the left are comical and a reminder why they should remain out of power.

[yarita]

JHC - in regards to #26 and #28,

I respect what you're saying, and I'm not really trying to argue with you, but I think you overestimate the difficulty of flying one of these things. When I learned to fly I was checked out for solo flight after about 6 hours of instruction in a Cessna. Granted, that was a small Cessna, but I know several airling pilots and they have told me that essentially the mechanics of flying are the same in a big plane. They speed up and slow down much slower, but once they are at flying speed they are pretty easy to fly. I've talked with F-15 pilots who have said the same of fighter jets (the first thing I say to most pilots I meet is "how does that thing fly?")

In regards to the Pentagon crash, too high and too low do extend infinitely, but you are disregarding the pilot's control. I regularly fly small planes a few feet off the ground - they don't just spontaneously change elevation unless there is a bit of wind, and a big plane takes a lot of wind to move it.

Some people even skim their tires on the surface of a lake - that takes some precision. But flying in low isn't that hard.

OK. What do I know.

[SigNeewfoew]

Whitestreet101, You don't happen to know a guy by the name of Whaley do you? If you do, send me a PM.

[sposteTipsKage]

Whitestreet101, You don't happen to know a guy by the name of Whaley do you? If you do, send me a PM.

Sorry, doesn't ring a bell.

[JohnMitchel]

We aren't even safe from other Americans, if you can call them such. Project Northwoods is an example of that, and that is something we KNOW about.

The fairy tale of bin Laden plotting all that was 911 out of a cave is no more believable than Santa Clause. Pilots who couldn't even pass 101 of flying a single prop Piper supposedly piloted a massive 757 on manuvers that witnesses watching radar said only a fighter jet could make.

Only one video of all 19 of any of the terrorist at the airport?

Atta oddly left his manual of "how to fly a plane" in his car at the airport.

The flight "brought down" over PA leaving articles from the plane on a 20 mile stretch and we are to believe it was slammed into the ground, with no missile or explosion previous to its fall? Real believeable.

PNAC said it needed a new Pearl Harbor, and magically they got it.

And people like you just stay completely unaware

Here you go again with your conspiracy theories. You have posted them countless times and they have been debunked every one of those times. Don't you think it's time you gave up? Legitimate explanations have already been posted numerous times. You simply don't have any evidence to support the theories and instead choose to ignore the evidence presented to you.