In my defense

by **NewKid** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:50 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And what was Chuck doing less than 12 months earlier Robert ? <hr></blockquote> It's "Chic" actually, and I think he was part of a wargaming scenario where they simulated crashing a plane into the Pentagon. But Slim, you have to remember, he was at box-cutter point by "Animal MacYoung" Hanjour. And 100 combat missions in nam, Miramar honors, and SERE school don't hold a candle to that.

by **slimmouse** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:52 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's the notion that it wasn't actually Flight 77, a 757 jetliner, that I've found easy to dismiss. Not the rest of the objections.<hr></blockquote> Logic would suggest to me, that if it WAS flight 77, there is only one way to explain it. Remote control. Unfortuneately, theres no way in my opinion, when looking at the physical evidence, I can arrive at the assumption that it was a 757. So as I see it, its either RC, or No plane. One thing is undeniable to any logical mind. It wasnt Hani, or some sophisticated Al Quaeda plot. That kinda thinking is for those in denial IMHO.

by **NewKid** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:59 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>slim, I've been suspicious of the 270 degree mile-high descent to ground level since about September 13, 2001 or so- even before I learned that a 20-year old kid was supposedly at the controls, or that the side of the building hit was totally out of commission, and evacuated except for construction personnel. (As for the "reinforced" part- that's what they hadn't completed doing yet.) It's the notion that it wasn't actually Flight 77, a 757 jetliner, that I've found easy to dismiss. Not the rest of the objections. <hr></blockquote> 29 actually, wasn't he? And why is it easy to dismiss? Why can't it be a 757 that isn't flight 77? Can we establish what happened to flight 77 after it disappeared from radar inexplicably? Do we know for sure why the tower and the FAA thought it had crashed? Wasn't the Joint chiefs comfortable with plane switching 39 years before 9-11? Are there even any Pentagon research sites that take the position that it positively was flight 77?

by **robertdreed** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:06 pm

You haven't seen any physical evidence, slimmouse. You've seen a few pictures of physical evidence, a minuscule sample of photographic and video representations reproduced in middling-quality digital format on the Internet. To say that what youv'e seen is less than comprehensive is to indulge in gross understatement. As for your experience in analyzing the aftermath of airplane crashes, as far as I can tell it's all been picked up on your own time over the past few years, with no instruction other than the leading questions posed by people who provide no more credentials of expertise than you do- often using Flat Earth methodology, along the lines of "take out a lighter and try to burn a piece of aluminum foil. You can't do it!" etc.

by **robertdreed** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:10 pm

"Why can't it be a 757 that isn't flight 77? Can we establish what happened to flight 77 after it disappeared from radar inexplicably? Do we know for sure why the tower and the FAA thought it had crashed?" There comes a limit...why, for instance, don't I ever hear the argument of how it was done, instead of challenging people to prove the negative? Challenging people to prove the negative is inherently nonsensical. If you're asserting that there was a phantom airplane or missile that hit the Pentagon instead of Flight 77, supply a plausible narrative and account for how it is that there's a consensus among the eyewitnesses nearest to the crash about what happened. That said..my patience is nearing an end. I suspect that I'm not alone. We've been over the did-Flight 77-hit-the-Pentagon thing on RI so many times that re-debunking it merely saps energy from real questions. Enough already. Go look it up if you don't believe me, "New Kid." Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/12/06 6:18 pm

by **slimmouse** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:17 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You haven't seen any physical evidence, slimmouse.<hr></blockquote> The point is, Im offering an opinion. Im offering an opinion based upon eliminating the impossible. The impossible being, the flight path ( other than RC) The logic ( That a sophisticated preplanned terrorist operation would take out the only part of the pentagon where Rummy and his lizards werent.) Im not big on RC in this instance, because I havent seen a plane yet, whereas in NYC, I saw planes. I cant even find evidence that flight 77 was scheduled to leave, or even left Boston logan Airport that morning. Of course, that is without even mentioning the fact that it flies out of Washington for 45 minutes, before returning to "its target" Funny. Im narrowing down the field of logical alternatives in order to arrive at what to my mind is a reasonable conclusion. Im offering an opinion. Dont see too many of the naysayers offering anything close.

by **pugzleyca3** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:18 pm

I am not trying to be smart or scientific in this post, I am just asking some questions that have been bugging me for awhile about this operation. (Like questions isn't ALL I have about it) If the official story were true about 19 highjackers flying into the buildings and the field in PA with the help of AL Quada... Why would it cost so many hundred of thousands of dollars to do this? Is this money thing put out there to make it sound like it would HAVE to have been sponsored by a terrorist network with money behind it, in order to convince us it was terrorist sponsored at all? Does anyone here know how much money was cited as having been spent for this operation by official sources? I remember seeing something about one transfer to Atta that was 100K. But the implication, to me, was that much, much more money was given to the highjackers over time. I know flight schools cost some money and so do car rentals. And why the flight school schtick anyway? They could have just forced the pilots from the airlines to fly the planes into the buildings if they had one of those ultra sharp box cutters to their necks, couldn't they? Or maybe not. I don't know. I guess their odds of success wouldn't be as great as murdering the pilots and flying them themselves. But still... Apartment and house rentals, food, clothing, etc. cost money too. But they lived in fairly simple housing and more several of them lived together sharing rent. The cars they rented were compacts or midsized, nothing fancy. And did they rent cars for all that time? No one had sense enough to buy one when they were here for what? Months, some of them supposedly for years? All this car rental business sounds funky to me. Why not pay cash and put it in a girlfriends name or something so as to not leave a paper trail everywhere they went? Did these guys ever work anywhere? Or were they model visa holders and never did any work at all while they were here in the U.S. all that time? Anyone know? And there is the matter of 19 plane tickets into the United States and 19 more tickets to get on the planes. I wonder if they went coach? My point is this. If the official story were true and of course it is not, the way they told it, it would be a fairly cheap operation. Considering. If it happened the way they said it did, it would be a fairly cheap and very simple operation. It wouldn't require a huge network of terrorists to sponsor or even plan something like this. Any group of men with a like mind and good jobs could have pulled this off the way the govt. is telling us it was done. I know what I just said here is so full of holes it isn't even funny, but it is an angle I really hadn't considered too much before. There isn't that huge of a money trail to follow is there, when you break it down like this? Especially when you consider that some of them turned up alive after the fact. 9/11 drives me nuts when trying to figure it out, any part of it. Nothing is for certain. Nothing.

by **NewKid** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>There comes a limit...why, for instance, don't I ever hear the argument of how it was done, instead of challenging people to prove the negative? <hr></blockquote> It's not proving a negative I'm asking. It's proving a positive. You can't establish what happened. There's no affirmative evidence establishing what the plane was. You're making an assumption. There's affirmative evidence which should establish that it was flight 77 that isn't there. There's affirmative evidence that something else might have happened to flight 77. You're free to conclude that it was flight 77, but you're making a big leap that no serious investigator would make. Concluding you are certain it was flight 77 is a logical fallacy.

by **robertdreed** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:21 pm

You're straining at gnats, while swallowing a camel. Don't expect everybody else to folow your lead on that. NewKid, how long have you been on this forum? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/12/06 6:22 pm

by **slimmouse** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:24 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You're straining at gnats, while swallowing a camel. Don't expect everybody else to folow your lead on that. <hr></blockquote> And youre a coward Robert. An opinion is free ( for the time being ) Who or what flew that fucking "missile" into the pentagon ? Its not that difficult, is it ?

by **NewKid** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If you're asserting that there was a phantom airplane or missile that hit the Pentagon instead of Flight 77, supply a plausible narrative and account for how it is that there's a consensus among the eyewitnesses nearest to the crash about what happened. <hr></blockquote> You're really not familiar with the case at all are you? There are numerous theories about what happened out there. You can not believe them if you want. That's fine. But you've already shown that you don't have a basic grasp of the facts of the case about Hanjour. You've offered a rather preposterous argument about him being some ace pilot in disguise and erroneously suggested that you were the first to make it. If you're tired of talking about it, that's fine. You're free to go away.

by **robertdreed** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Lurkers, my time is being wasted. I'm finding another thread. slimmouse and NewKid can high-five each other from here on out, for all I care. If you don't want your time wasted, either, I suggest continuing over at <a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa77">www.cooperativeresearch.o..._9/11=aa77</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/12/06 6:31 pm

by **FourthBase** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:29 pm

I think the most efficient theory is remote control of Flight 77. Hanjour couldn't have performed those manuevers. It's laughable that the plane hit the one reinforced wedge sideways. Work around that and you've got yourself a compelling beginning to a theory. Positing decoy planes, missiles, etc. without more evidence than is currently available is futile and counterproductive.

by **robertdreed** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:30 pm

"Positing decoy planes, missiles, etc. without more evidence than is currently available is futile and counterproductive." I'd like to know what other reason there could be for doing it. oops...I know, I promised.

by **NewKid** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>This picture of Hanjour doesn't seem to have much resemblance to the thin Hanjour in other photos.<hr></blockquote> Then perhaps it's not Hanjour after all. Imagine that.

In my defense

Re: Who flew the plane Robert, and how did they do that ?

Logic would suggest to me.

Re: Logic would suggest to me.

Re: Logic would suggest to me.

Re: Logic would suggest to me.

The point is...

19 highjackers?

Re: Logic would suggest to me.

slimmouse

And youre a coward.

Re: Logic would suggest to me.

Re: And youre a coward.

Re: slimmouse

Re: slimmouse

Re: slimmouse

Who is online