Navigation is likewise relatively easy, at least for the World Trade Center. Even to fly a small airplane, you must learn how to use the navigation equipment. It is also possible that the terrorists used simple GPS systems in the cockpit. These can be purchased for less than $200. They will tell you where you are, how fast you are going, what direction you are traveling, and the distance to your goal (the WTC towers, keyed in ahead of time).

Finally, the terrorists could rely on visual flying. I suspect that they did this, after discovering that they were confused by the navigation systems. Even GPS sounds simpler than it is. As you approach the target, switching back and forth between the modes of the GPS can become confusing. I would guess that the terrorists switched to visual navigation. Flight 11 may have followed the Hudson River.

The airplane that hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center was steeply banked as it hit; this is evident from the movie taken from Battery Park. Some people have stated that this shows the pilots were highly trained. That is ridiculous. It shows that the pilot had aimed the airplane badly, and was trying a last-minute desperation maneuver to hit the building. Unfortunately, the maneuver succeeded.

you missed the whole point with your strawman distraction

because as Sully prooved

even getting step A, did not guarantee step B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z in perfect order

so you failed misearably in your answer.

and the navigation into the WTC was point H

you now eliminated all discussion of point A B C D E F G

great try though.

Taz

you use so many strawmen, that you must reap alot of corn

You know what

You have proven now that you had no answers
just a couple of canned responses to a part way in the middle of the thing

but you don't get it

You can't perfectly arrive at step H without having perfectly arrived at step A B C D E F G

and just about the only one that day with a perfect alibi was VOILA George W. Bush, who was placed in that public school room for all the world to see
during the entire event at lower Manhattan
How deliciously coincidental wasn't it

annd yes taz, it would be safe to assume W himself had NO knowledge of the entire event

That too was one of the reasons it was he, not Jeb in 2000


Remember- Sully prooved it in Jan.09 that Sept. 01 did not happen the way it said

Also Taz-you accidentally in one post on the other thread, agree that the official story is bogus
though you reverted back in a followup post

and used a strawman against magmak1
who never said Bush43 did anything

But a handheld GPS is not connected to the flight controls which point the airplane in the right direction.

True, but you can also have coordinates available ready to insert into the flight plan...



Visual or instrument, it takes A LOT OF SKILL to hit a target the width of a typical runway at three times the normal approach speed. Remember, these "pilots" were not interested in landing. Proper alignment and drift correction are lesson #1 in landing.

Yes, it does which tends to make me think that somehow the inflight computer was adjusted and the plane flew itself into those buildings...

I agree for a person to do what was done manually seems unlikely...but is it impossible for the flight computer to be reprogrammed at maximum speed for impact?



Or, that the autopilot was engaged and made that maneuver. Only the world's sharpest pilot could have done it by hand.

I see Oct. 13, Captain Sullenburger is doing a book signing in NYC.

I would like to get a signed copy of his book.

And I would like to tell Sully, THANK YOU...

You made everything so easy to see that blue, clear day (not unlike the sky of another clear, blue day)...

because Capt. Sully- your one in a million happenstance, prooved that 9/11 official story could NOT have happened.

And, clear as day, Taz's complete ignoring of my major point here, shows those trying to debunk the truthers, cannot answer the question I posed to them-

that being the WTC was step H and they argue the minutia crap points (PP did that way back too), and attempt to use high fallutin' words and stuff I need to look up in a dictionary, but at the end of the day

they have never disproved my nose
nor the fact that the WTC was step H
and they couldn't get answers to step A B C D E F G and then I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z (let alone step H)

sorry taz, your horse lost this race. You can bet on that.

dear taz

you still don't get it

the wtc9/11 was step H

what about step
a -- Bin Laden trains an al Qaeda cell leader
b -- cell leader embarks on putting cell together
c -- cell seeks papers to enter the US
d -- cell members get training in flying
e -- cell members coordinate time and place of attack
f -- cell members hijack planes
g -- cell members program jets to targets...
then step ---impact on WTC
i -- WTC burning...weakened steel starts to collapse
j -- building collapses
k
l
m
etc.

the whole plan just wasn't the 9/11

that was but one part

dontcha see it?

Good ole' Sully the hero proved it

perfection cannot be guaranteed unless it is perfected

Sully unwittingly, perfectly proved it
so good, that he doesn't know what a genius he is
or even that he proved it
but he did

It was all crystal clear last Jan. when I watched this marvelous happy event that had nothing yet everything in common

Prove to me (and your adoring public) it was step "H"

What's your version of the events Graham...

You don't even know...you don't have a clue...

But you want to lead us another another wild goose chase...and this time I just am not biting...

you just are name calling taz

You mean game calling...what name did I call you? Goose chase leader?

Stop playing the weak-kneed 98 pound weakling...you notice I did not call you one...I said stop acting like one...getting all indignant like your feelings have been irreparably harmed...

you have not answered one of my points

You have not framed an intellgible question yet...so it is difficult to respond to thin air...

I don't even have a theory here, so your belittling doesn't work


Ah, that does seem quite apparent...and the primary reason I have not responded...see above...

It is plane as my nose...

19 bumblers could NOT have known at step A, that they could get it to go like step Z

They had no idea...you are right...they hoped it would work...but they did not know...they could not conceive that the American national security apparatus could be so incompetent...but then the gift that just kept on giving was Bush and Cheney...the incompetence twins...

It's like dominoes-you have to do it perfect to get them to all fall down, and not go off track

No, there is where you are wrong...you could have impacted that building in any number of places with the planes like they did...and the same result would have occurred...the heat was not enough to make the metal melt but it was hot enough to weaken the beam support enough to make it impossible to hold the weight it was holding...

so from the day it was started, to the day Bush got into Iraq it all had to go down perfect

See? It has nothing at all to do with 9/11, but 9-11 was Step H. Without Step H, there would be no afterward.
Without Step A thru G, there would be NO H.

and step I thru Z and beyond were more important actually than step H

H just was a vessel she sailed into

Sure, Graham...

I am hopeful that your paranoia keeps you warm at night too...

then fade to last January, and see that Sully proved that you needed a piece of the NY Lottery last January

Sully was perfect

but 9 out 10 times, Sully would not have had the outcome he did

voila

Sully was lucky...indeed...reprogramming the plane's flight schedule eliminated the need for luck...

had it all not gone down the way it did
nothing

and its not a game taz
go bet on a horse it you want to play games
or better yet
buy a lottery ticket
and sing the song of the nyc commercials
it will open your eyes...
actually, not yours
because yours are eyes wide shut

you must be blinder than David Patterson

or just as dense as the fog on my hill last night

I guess in your world, neat and tidy, spic and span, ...

as Elvis sang
I want you I need you I love you
as the other Elvis Sang
watching the detectives

God didn't make the little green apples, lived on rain in Indianapolis in the summertime
and he didn't start the alphabet at the letter H either.

(the alphabet is not the important part, it is just an attempt to get you to SEE, if you would open your eyes.
Step H is not the important in that it is H, it could be M or P or AD or BE or as many steps as there are that happened
H is just a figment

Ever go to WDW? Remember Figment?

What is Obama's role in the cover up?

Do you really believe that a successor president and his staff would have no clue if indeed you and the truthers were right?

15 questions 9/11 ‘truthers’ now need to answer
http://counterknowledge.com/2008/12/15-que...need-to-answer/

One of the standard claims of 9/11 “truthers” is that they are merely skeptical individuals with a healthy and understandable desire not to swallow US government propaganda at face value. The mantra “just asking questions” allows them to pose as wary and intelligent souls too accustomed to the concept of duplicity in high places to accept the “official story” of Al Qaeda’s role in planning and perpetrating the largest mass casualty terrorist attack in modern history. It also allows them to adopt an indignant tone when dealing with their critics, and to conflate attempts by debunkers to undermine their claims with both unquestioning acceptance of an “official cover-up” (irrespective of whether the debunker happens to be a supporter of the current US administration or not) and a systematic effort to deprive them of freedom of speech. It goes without saying that in the process the “truthers” set up two straw-men for them to knock down, but then they’re not very good at dealing with tougher critics.

The “just asking questions” approach has three further advantages to those of a paranoid mindset and a less than scrupulous approach to evidence and facts (if George Orwell were alive today, he’d appreciate the irony of serial disinformation merchants like Dylan Avery and David Ray Griffin posing as members of a “truth movement”, given their fast and loose approach to the historical record and scientific fact). Firstly, conspiracy theorists know that mud sticks: if you can make an accusation against an individual or group through innuendo and sly hints the latter has the hard task of proving the calumnies against them to be false. Film buffs will no doubt recall George C. Scott’s performance as the malevolent prosecutor in Anatomy of a Murder, and his repeated question to the defendant Ben Gazzara: “Exactly when did you stop beating your wife?” This approach sums up “truther debating tactics nicely.

Secondly, the claim that one is “just asking questions” is liberating, as it frees the truther of the obligation of actually constructing a coherent alternative theory - based on the evidence at hand - which is more convincing than the “official theory”. Why worry if the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolitions or not? Why worry if the hijackers were patsies or ghosts? Why worry if the Pentagon was hit by a missile or a jumbo jet piloted by remote control? Why worry if the passengers of the four planes are alive or not? With one or two exceptions (notably Michael Ruppert), 9/11 conspiracy theorists and their supporters do not actually outline a scenario which explains how and why the US government (in cahoots with the Israelis, or the military-industrial complex, or whoever else) slaughtered nearly 3,000 people - most of whom were American citizens - in a co-ordinated series of attacks which were then blamed on Arab Islamist terrorists. Most truthers lack sufficient moral courage to produce a real theory about 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ which combines motive with method and which can be tested against the evidence. Deep down, they know that once they venture into specific claims their case will be torn to shreds, and they will be exposed as ignorant frauds.

Thirdly, it makes the task of a truther an easy one: all he or she (there seem to be few female truthers around, which hopefully means that they won’t reproduce) has to do is google to get the appropriate “story” from Prison Planet, 9/11 Blogger, What Really Happened or a similar website. Hey presto, they get what they want: “The FBI said there were no phone calls from AA77!”; “4,000 Jews didn’t turn up to work at the WTC on 9/11!”; “Silverstein ordered the demolition of WTC7!” And so on and so forth.

Any genuine skeptic dealing with truthers - whether online or in the flesh - then has to (1) work out what the hell his or her interlocutor is talking about, and (2) ask themselves how exactly they made this claim, and if it has any substance. Anyone lacking either patience or detailed knowledge of the events of 11th September 2001 may be tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Debunkers are left with the time-consuming task of researching the historical background, and trying to assemble the relevant technical and scientific information, before they can actually verify the facts for themselves. In short, the truther can throw out a red herring or an outright distortion in a matter of minutes, leaving it up to other net users to take the time and trouble to verify their origin and accuracy.

Fortunately, yeoman work has been done by scores of individuals to actually put the record straight. Pat and James from Screw Loose Change, Mark Roberts, 9/11 Myths, Debunking 9/11 and 9/11 Guide in particular provide a valuable resource. The James Randi forum is particularly useful in that it provides commentators with specialist knowledge - military veterans, pilots, flight engineers, physicists, architects, forensic experts etc - with a platform to expose the anti-scientific claptrap and historical illiteracy of the truthers. This is the main reason why the JREF and its commentators arouse such hatred from the 9/11 conspiracy ghouls.

It’s time to turn the tables on the truthers. Rather than accept a situation in which the nutjobs and kooks who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracies can make their accusations willy-nilly, it is high time that their critics decided that they can “just ask questions” too. This particular debunker has decided that maybe, just for once, the onus for actually demonstrating the validity of their theories on the basis of systematic and critical analysis of the evidence belongs to the truthers, not to those who wish to expose their fallacies. As someone whose academic bias is based on history, I would like to pose the following challenge to the conspiracy-mongers:

Let’s take your thesis (that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush administration, and covered up by a coalition of US government agencies, allied powers, big business and the media) as read. The following questions point to logical and factual gaps within that thesis. It is now up to you to answer these questions and explain why your theories are still valid. For your answers to be credible, they need to be detailed and based on verifiable evidence. No suppositions, no speculation, no unsupported assertions, just the facts. Stop “asking questions”, and provide answers. These fifteen initial questions will do for starters.

(1) On 9th September 2001 Ahmed Shah Massoud, the most effective military commander of the anti-Taliban coalition (the Northern Alliance, or NA) was killed by two Arab suicide bombers posing as journalists. The assassination of Massoud had taken months to plan, and the latter had received the bogus request for an ‘interview’ in May 2001 (See Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, pp.574-576; Jason Burke, Al Qaeda, p.197; Daniel Byman, Deadly Connections, p.210. Two days before 9/11, Al Qaeda killed the Taliban’s main enemy, who had also played a pivotal role in keeping the NA factions together, and who would have been the obvious figure to liase with if the Americans had decided to effect regime change in Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah Massoud’s assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New York and Washington?

(2) Conversely, prior to 9/11, the US government had minimal contacts with Massoud and other Northern Alliance figures, much to the latter’s frustration (See Coll, passim). If 9/11 was a “false flag” operation intended to justify a pre-determined plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didn’t the CIA and other US government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the NA?

(3) Just before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other key Al Qaeda personnel left their quarters in Kandahar to hide in Tora Bora (Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, pp.356-358). Why did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly leave their known locations and go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action by the USA?

(4) In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a plan to invade Afghanistan. The JCS had to admit that they had no contingency plan for such an invasion, and in the weeks preceding Operation Enduring Freedom the CIA and the Department of Defense were obliged to improvise a plan of attack against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies (Benjamin Lambeth, Air Power Against Terror; Bob Woodward, Bush At War). If 9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan? Why was one not prepared beforehand?

(5) We are being asked by the truthers to believe that the 19 hijackers were “patsies”, or non-existent. If that was the case, and if the intention of the real plotters in the US government was to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in the Middle East, why were 15 out of the 19 ‘bogus’ Al Qaeda terrorists given Saudi nationality? The other four hijackers consisted of an Egyptian, a Lebanese and two citizens of the UAE. We are being asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies. Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity? Why were they not given forged links with terrorist groups (such as the Abu Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad? If we are supposed to believe that the Israelis had a hand in 9/11, then why were none of the patsies Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas? What kind of conspirator sets up a plot to frame an innocent party without forging the evidence to implicate the latter?

(6) Following on from this point, if the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that citizens from their own countries were involved? What incentive did Saudi Arabia have for accepting that 15 of its own people had committed mass murder on US soil? Why would the Saudis co-operate in a plot which would blacken their country’s name, benefit Israeli interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a bulwark against Iran?

(7) Afghanistan is a landlocked country (truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is logistically impossible without the support of its neighbours. Prior to 9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, passim). The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed the NA, but were also wary of antagonising their former imperial master, Russia. Pre-September 2001 these states would not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the USA’s invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any attack on Afghanistan. Assuming againt that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban?

(8) Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (”dancing Israelis”, etc.) are correct, can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil? Since 1967, the mainstay of Israel’s security and survival has been its alignment with the USA, and the military assistance it has received as a result. This relationship is based on a bipartisan political consensus (both the Republican and Democratic parties are predominantly pro-Israeli) and considerable public support in the USA. Why engage in a “false flag” attack against the civilian population of an ally, when you have so little to gain and so much to lose if your responsibility is ever disclosed?

(9) Following on from this, assuming that the “five dancing Israelis” story isn’t a complete fabrication, what kind of secret service recruits undercover agents who compromise themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public? And if the five arrested Israelis were part of a conspiracy organised with the US government, then why did the FBI hold them in custody for over two months, instead of releasing them on the quiet a matter of hours and days after their apprehension?

(10) If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted? Why concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical errors)? Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb?

(11) Assuming that Niaz Naik’s account of his alleged meeting with retired US officials in July 2001 is true, then where were the 17,000 Russian troops who were supposedly ready to invade Afghanistan when it came to the commencement of military operations in October 2001? And if the main motive behind the invasion was to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were overthrown?

(12) We are being asked by the conspiracy theorists to assume that NORAD was stood down on the morning of 11th September 2001 so as to enable the success of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. NORAD is a combined command, not a purely American one - it has a binational staff drawn from the US military and the Canadian Forces (CF). We are either supposed to believe that the CF personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in their headquarters - and query it - or that the Canadian government and the CF were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true?

(13) If Al Qaeda were set-up for the 11th September attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks (see here, here, here and here for examples)? Why are we supposed to believe that repeated video pronouncements by bin Laden and Zawahiri are fake, while just one written statement allegedly from bin Laden denying responsibility - which was handed by courier to al-Jazeera without any confirmation of its origins - was genuine?

(14) If the hijacking and crashing of four passenger planes was engineered by the US government, then why did UA93 crash into an empty field in Pennsylvania? Why not crash it into a target which would add to the death toll on 9/11, and further inflame US public attitudes and popular demands for revenge against the supposed perpetrators?

(15) Finally, if the US government is institutionally ruthless enough to organise the massacre of thousands of its own citizens in a series of “false flag” attacks, then why is it too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed “truth-seekers” (David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose Change team, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own people? Why are these people still alive and well, and in a position to publicise their “theories” on radio, television, in print and online?

Obama was not in office in 2001

why does taz IGNORE ALL THE POSTS and focus on a strawman?

Obama was NOT on the committee that wrote the official story

I would think Obama would be in mortal and poloitical danger if he did something

Though his hiring of Van Jones said plenty
it got it talked about in the MSM

Where is Taz on this?

He is doing the PP

Taz
the 9-11 date was STEP H

not step
a
b
c
d
e
f
g

and not
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
u
v
w
x
y
z
aa
ab
ac
ad
ae
af
ag
ah
etc.

funny you ignored magmak's stand alone thread

funny you are only here 9 to 5 like a governmental worker

gotta watch out for your spanking someday

I am not saying any theory at all...
you once again ignore it

and we know Y

Posted Oct 2 2009, 02:38 PM

And what does Graham think of Obama's role in this?

For me, the truthers have yet to make a credible case...so Obama's adoption of the official story for me is not problematic...

BUt for the truthers like you and Graham, I should think that such a reality would be cataclysmic...tantamount to another 4 years of Bush in your minds eye...

it doesn't put a whole lot of anything in it

It is a distraction, a strawman

Of course Obama knows the truth

only a bushfamilysyncopant like you would not know the truth

He politically can do nothing, it would mean the end of his career if he spoke out
and you know it

the people have to be the one

long as there are assses who lie and use strawmen the people don't know the truth

and I have NOT given you a theory
therefore what hole? (except the a-hole that wrote the post above mine).

PP lied and 2.54 million have died

A lot of intelligent, decent people on seeing that statement would say that it is pure caca de toro. I know that I do. It is as rational as the Obama hate that comes from a poster or two here...

I see you are a government worker

in some parts that is like a scab

So, now you are suggesting that Obama is aiding and abetting Bush in his cover-up...

That he is powerless to take action...as President of the United States...

And that some how the people need to wake up to this and take action....that the President can't take...himself....



And I know you have not given me a theory...at least a specific one...you have hinted that you believe Bush and Cheney are behind something...and Obama is covering it up to save his political career...rather than having the courage to save his country...

And of course you have no proof any of this...but despite this reality you are suggesting that it is up to the people like you and I to raise awareness and demand that the government re-investigate this issue --- and that the government part of which is facilitating the coverup...is going to allow another part of the government to reveal the cvoer-up...

Can you see where there is a bit of a problem -- a conflict -- an impossibility in the execution of you and the truthers plan?

And the hole that exists in your theory is that if you are right...that Obama is saving his political skin by not revealing this...then he is violating his oath of office to protect and defend the Constituion of the US in doing so if you and the truthers are right...which it is becoming more and more clear that you could not be right...by the minute...

When I first began this exercise with magmak1 -- I thought that there were some unexplained areas-- some weaknesses in the government's story ---...but the more I read and learn it seems clear to me that all of the complaints and challenges offered by the truthers have been fully and adequately explained...and that those who cannot accept it are in some fantastic state of denial...like Bush was regarding Iraq...and other things...

you are paid to make a back and forth and have the original reader get blurry eyed trying to remember who is who
psy0ps101

do you see how prepostourous YOUR official story is
that haphazardly 19 bumblers did all they did at step H, which was 9/11, and insured step Z (all that happened between H and Z ) happened

and that only 19 bumblers and 1 six foot eleven cave dweller knew

that is YOUR official story

you have completely ignored all the posts magmak wrote, and I wrote
and all you do is to try to get blurry eyed reader to forget who wrote what
(which is why you resorted to mind games and putting your font in magmak's post so no one could figure out who was saying what

you are not being childish
you are much like THEM
doing what you are doing to get the average joe to not read anything but the official story

Navigation


Navigation is likewise relatively easy, at least for the World Trade Center. Even to fly a small airplane, you must learn how to use the navigation equipment. It is also possible that the terrorists used simple GPS systems in the cockpit. These can be purchased for less than $200. They will tell you where you are, how fast you are going, what direction you are traveling, and the distance to your goal (the WTC towers, keyed in ahead of time).



Finally, the terrorists could rely on visual flying. I suspect that they did this, after discovering that they were confused by the navigation systems. Even GPS sounds simpler than it is. As you approach the target, switching back and forth between the modes of the GPS can become confusing. I would guess that the terrorists switched to visual navigation. Flight 11 may have followed the Hudson River.



If you have flown over Washington DC, you may have noticed how difficult it is to pick out landmarks. Even the Washington monument is difficult to spot; from the air, it is very small. The White House is tiny and very tricky to spot. It is possible that the target for American Airlines flight 77 was the White House, but the terrorists couldn't spot it. In contrast, the Pentagon is huge and an easy target. They may have gone to this as a backup -- because they could spot it visually.



The airplane that hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center was steeply banked as it hit; this is evident from the movie taken from Battery Park. Some people have stated that this shows the pilots were highly trained. That is ridiculous. It shows that the pilot had aimed the airplane badly, and was trying a last-minute desperation maneuver to hit the building. Unfortunately, the maneuver succeeded.

http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/o...dix-Sept.11.htm

Graham I had been responding for months that way once we got the quotes back -- and were limited to how many we could capture...

Magmak1 -- like everyone else here...when there was an everyone else here before you bullied them to leave...was responding fine...

And then suddenly you and he had a problem with it...

You and magmak1 were the only posters who had a problem with this...the only ones...hmm I see a pattern here...

Are you and magmak1 -- the same poster?

Are you using PsyOps on me?

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh........ (picture Gossamer on Looney Tunes running off into the night after he realizes that he is being watched by the audience and screams "People!")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbZsncqI57Q



I have been doing that type of responding for months...and only when I start holding your feet to the fire with detailed responses...do you two suddenly try and project on me some more of your silly paranoia...

Stop obfuscating and respond to the posts...you know what you wrote...and he knows what he wrote...and my writing is in bold as I have been using it for months...

Its easy to distinguish if you actually want to discuss the issue -- instead of distracting...but when have you truthers ever wanted to discuss the issue without distraction?

Not too often that I have seen...

Instead of discussing...you criticize my font...call me names...continue to hypotheisze about my profession which I revealed on a previous thread if you were bothering to pay attention...

I really think that OBL was happy with Bush as President. If I were him I know I would have been! And no, I don't think he cares a fig about his people, at least he would quite willingly sacrifice them for his "holy aims". Hasn't he done that quite a bit over the past few years?