• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
WildCat said:
I think more recent estimates of the speed of the plane that hit the Pentagon are ~350 mph.

Ever wonder why they crashed into the side of the Pentagon? Seems to me that far more damage could have been done by hitting the roof at a low angle. But this would require a high degree of piloting skill, far easier to just maintain a low altitude and hit the side.
Click to expand...
And just to pile on, what do the CTers suppose would happen if a mediocre pilot tried to operate a jet at cruising speed at very low altitudes. I'm not an expert and I'll certainly defer to any experienced pilots, but my guess is that he would very quickly, well, crash.
 
Well, just applied for registration. Not that I can provide much, but there is a thread by sun zoo that talks about the subsitution of the United flight that hit the South Tower with a "Government" subsitution.

I have a few helpful words that may assist Mr. Zoo in his quest...

Don't expect a lot from me there, but Hutch is now engaging...once I'm registered, that is...
 
I have been in an ongoing debate over at a computer hardware forum. I've got a semi-literate (at least more so than the LC forum people) guy who just keeps on going, and the conspiracy is getting even bigger. He is now throwing around names like Mineta (and his "suppressed testimony" implicating cheney), Sibel Edmonds (and her gag orders), the "Able Danger" coverup... He is throwing around so many conspiracies that I can't keep up! So here I am trying to be reasonable with him, and I have to google these people just to find out why/how they relate... which of course only brings up more CT sites!

I'll quote him so you can see what kind of yahoo I'm dealing with:
"The very fact that our government REFUSES to acknowledge a single explosion means they have something to hide. 3 huge explosions (corroborated by numerous witnesses) before WTC1 came down (not to mention many more before WTC2), and none of them are acknolwedged by the government? Cover-up."
*Note the post also contains the ubiquitous smily faces and thumbs downs that these guys like so much.

More:
"Who says the engineers are in on it? They've been given an outcome, and are told to derive a model based on the assumption the towers came down due to fires. Again, no demolition model has been presented even with all the evidence pointing towards demolition (lower level demolition flashes, pryoclastic dust clouds, HUGE pre collapse explosions, earthquake type rumbles before the collapses started, molten steel due to possible thermite usage, etc)."

I don't know if it is even worth it to continue with this guy, but he is being nice and civil, so I'll try.
 
Project86 said:
and I have to google these people just to find out why/how they relate...
Click to expand...

They don't relate. The CTers just throw out a rapid fire burst of questions. As soon as you start to answer one they just throw out another. They're not interested in hearing the answers.

Steve S.
 
WildCat said:
I think more recent estimates of the speed of the plane that hit the Pentagon are ~350 mph.

Ever wonder why they crashed into the side of the Pentagon? Seems to me that far more damage could have been done by hitting the roof at a low angle. But this would require a high degree of piloting skill, far easier to just maintain a low altitude and hit the side.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm no expert but I figure it would have been easier just to nose-dive somewhere into the middle of the Pentagon.

My guess is that hitting the outer wall was deliberate, and done for propaganda purposes. They wanted the world to see a big damn hole in the side of the Pentagon, not a little pillar of smoke from somewhere inside.

That's just empty theorising though.
 
The LCers however say that flight 77 going in low, clipping light poles on the way, would be very difficult to do. Yes, it may be difficult if that's what you're trying to do, but what makes them think that was the intent? It seems more likely that he was wanting to hit the Pentagon in a dive, but came in too low, but managed to keep from crashing into the ground just barely.
 
CurtC said:
The LCers however say that flight 77 going in low, clipping light poles on the way, would be very difficult to do. Yes, it may be difficult if that's what you're trying to do, but what makes them think that was the intent? It seems more likely that he was wanting to hit the Pentagon in a dive, but came in too low, but managed to keep from crashing into the ground just barely.
Click to expand...

I think your explanation is more plausible, considering that Hanjour missed the Pentagon in the first place and had to turn around.

If he'd been a better pilot, he'd probably have done more damage (and possibly annihilated Rumsfeld) than he did, as he only hit the reenforced side.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Actually, I'm no expert but I figure it would have been easier just to nose-dive somewhere into the middle of the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
Not true! You have to have the attack angle just right to do that, off by just a little and you miss. That would take the same skill set as landing a plane, and we all know that was the part this hijacker had trouble w/. Much easier to ram into the side of a building.
 
WildCat said:
You mean the way they misspell Cheney and Rumsfeld in the first 2 posts? :p
Click to expand...

well, thats what happens when you get a bunch of brainwashed 12yr olds who can't spell yet but know the physics and techniques of building demolition and collapse.
 
Well, I just made my first post over there, trying to 'help' Sun Zoo with his Boeing subsitution hypothesis, by politiely pointing out that (1) The US Government hasn't bought any 767 Tankers yet and (2) That all the Boeing 767-300 aircraft are apparently accounted for.

I did leave him some outs, I will be most interested in seeing which ones he takes.

PS-who is 'idonteatdeadpuppies' here in the real world of JREF?
 
Maybe they made a plane that looked like a 767, but didn't act like a 767, and then made few extra ones as part of a conspiracy.

nah, they'd never get the sarcasm.
 
Last edited:
Hutch said:
Well, I just made my first post over there, trying to 'help' Sun Zoo with his Boeing subsitution hypothesis, by politiely pointing out that (1) The US Government hasn't bought any 767 Tankers yet and (2) That all the Boeing 767-300 aircraft are apparently accounted for.
Click to expand...
Where's that thread?
 
Hutch said:
Well, I just made my first post over there, trying to 'help' Sun Zoo with his Boeing subsitution hypothesis, by politiely pointing out that (1) The US Government hasn't bought any 767 Tankers yet and (2) That all the Boeing 767-300 aircraft are apparently accounted for.

I did leave him some outs, I will be most interested in seeing which ones he takes.

PS-who is 'idonteatdeadpuppies' here in the real world of JREF?
Click to expand...

Don't know...but I think justthefactsmaam is Manny. Manny, is that you?
 
Hutch said:
Right here;
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4538
No reply to date. We shall see.
Click to expand...
I find myself not facing the computer monitor directly when i go the LC site, as if I'm hand shy from being slapped by so much stupidity.

Sun Zoo is now at the top of my list of the dumbest people on earth.
And so this plane was a high precision design engineered missile-drone firing a missile at entry, in order so that the planes gushing contents (cargo/tanker) would meet up with an expanding FAE warhead detonation, so that the whole thing would produce the massive fireball observed, projected outside of the building, through the bombed out holes, for the greatest possible pyrotechnic, shock and awe, theatrical display, and do so within seconds.
Click to expand...
 
Gravy, Sun Zoo has replied and I have responded--we will see his response, but I find his POV not compelling...

Quote by Sun Zoo on Loose Change:

. Bottom line, I do not have to prove unequivocally what it was, but only what it was not (flight 175) to prove, once again that 9/11 really was an inside job, and that this aircraft was in fact a remotely piloted drone aircraft, most certainly design engineered for maximal pyrotechnic shock and awe viewing horror
Click to expand...
Italics are mine.

Hutch's quote in response:

I respectfully disagree. You quote Abraham Lincoln in your signature; allow me to borrow from him also. During the Civil War, Lincoln had more than a little trouble with a General named McClellan; but he retained him in command even when many others wanted him out. When one Congressman demanded that Lincoln replace him, Lincolln asked him "Who would you have me replace him with?" The congressman replied "Anybody". "Anybody may be fine for you, said Lincoln, "but I must have somebody."

My point is, you can say that if it is not Flt 175, then "anybody" will do. I must needs argue that, like Lincoln, I must have "Somebody"

Thoughtfully yours, hutch
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom