[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[pomeroo]

Thanks for putting Dunn up. I've had a great laugh. I laughed so much, I nearly bought the bride a takeaway.
I quote Dunn, wit hregard ro the Pentagon,
"The wings, tailplane and rudder are irrelevant".
Begging the reply, "How did the plane fly then?"
or
"Very true when you're describing a missile".

Yes, we can picture your hysterical laughter very well. Dunn is, of course, a military historian who specializes in avionics. You know nothing at all. You were wise to refuse to read the debates. Refuting Dunn is far beyond your capacity and your crude attempt at quote mining has just brought you more well-deserved ridicule.

 

[SOMERLED]

If you don't know, I don't see how you can expect me to tell you.

Now, you have repeatedly claimed that the hijackers weighed only six stones and were hung over. I want to see your evidence for this.

Rolfe.

Being ill mannered and obtuse is not the best way to influence people.
The main point to my post was that once you accept that 9/11 was an inside job, it must then follow that someone made a choice between taking a chance on four sets of hijackers, four times through security, actually sixteen times through security in four separate locations.
Take Occum's razor to that.
Then you have four flight crews to acquiesce,
take Occums razor to that.
Four sets of passengers, the split second it takes for a pilot to get off a mayday, getting from hijack point to target, on and on the possibilities of something going wrong stack up. Look at the weather for example.
A lot of 'sceptics' scream 'clear weather'. But, how would you know the weather was going to be clear, when the decision was made weeks before?
It's total nonsense. The four 'hijacks' are the cover story.
No one would chance success or failure on such a scheme, when they had the guaranteed to hit the target option of a pre dawn take off from Offutt.
This is not rocket science. If Sherlock Holmes were on this case, he would solve it between lighting his pipe and throwing the match away.

 

[SOMERLED]

Out of curiousity I started reading some of Jack White's website. What a load of rubbish! He makes more assumptions than most CT'ers.

His first, the missing railing. He has yet to prove the sidewalks are even the same sidewalks. Think there was more than one sidewalk around the Pentagon?

His second, the yellow/black sign. He doesn' prove it's the same sign. He's probably going by the parked police car. The car isn't even parked in the same direction. Are they even the same yellow/black signs?

I could go on and on. The cases he makes are full of holes.

Forget about Jack White, deal with me.
This is me talking, do you see anything fake with regard to the 'bagman' ?

 

[SOMERLED]

I was only in Europe once and that was in the 1970's so I don't recall what I actually saw in the elevators i experienced there.

However in Canada and the USA every elevator I have been on has the button that will take the elevator car to the ground floor marked as "G" (ground0 or "L"(lobby) or indeed as "1". The next button that will take one to the level above that is marked "2" and sometimes as "M" (mezzanine, dependant upon there being a walkway overlooking the first floor(ground level).

There, I hope this clears up the utter idiocy you have displayed concerning this well known bit of difference between how we do things on this side of the pond and how you believe things are done in a place you have never visited. Do you think we are all just having you on, pulling your leg, or simply lieing?

That would put you around the sixty years of age mark. You have been to Europe, presumeably England and you can't recall such an inconsequential matter. Why then am I a LIAR for doing the same as you?

 

[SOMERLED]

Maybe I wasn't clear in my point. After your suggestion that the Pentagon was in a location that could not be struck by an aircraft due to the local topography, I replied with three examples of technology currently available that should have no difficulty guiding an aircraft into that building. My point still stands that using a decoy plane to fly over the Pentagon (apparently through a fireball to disguise the escape) makes no sense as the risks of discovery are too great.

Compare this with your dismissal of the terrorist hijacking as being too risky as these men (armed with small knives and a bomb) were only "six stones". Clearly hijackings do occur (I've shown examples of individuals taking over 747's single handedly using only a knife). I think you need to address large conceptual issues before you worry about downed fences and broken windows.

V/R
G

You make two points, the Pentagon and the 'hijacks'.
With regard to the Pentagon, only in hindsight have the risks been shown to be too great. This is surely due to the web.
To go back to the planning stage and this is common to both points.
As far as the Pentagon is concerned, two of the three systems you name require beacons or 'line of sight' technology. Landing on a carrier would best be done by beacon, in my opinion. You can line up (or the technology can) from miles and miles away. Too far left, too far right etc etc is how it started, that's for sure. You can't do that with the Pentagon, it's too low slung.
The other technology is GPS. Nothing wrong with that, but it's gyroscope steeing and by no means a small matter to swap everything over to the way a plane is steered. All in all, a flyover seems to be the best option.
Points such as this are best being chewed over with a fellow truther. The potential for being led into a maze of technical stuff are plentiful and I will not go down that road, unless I am talking to a truther.
About 25 years ago, I picked up an IV bag and held it high, to be immediately ordered to put it back on the stretcher. I mentioned the need to hold the bag higher that the patient and was laughed at. Gravity feed had gone out years before. Those bags are mildly pressurised and will work equally well above or below the patient. Holding high such bags was for films and TV only. That was twenty five years ago. What do you think I thought when I first saw the bagman?
What do you think every doctor, nurse, medic, paramedic etc in the world will also think when they see that?
That's over and above the brushing out of the guardrail etc etc.
In conclusion, truthers start at different places.
Are you still firmly of the opinion that 'jihadists' did it? Because if you are,
can you not see that this constant irrational denial is bordering on a 'bunker' type mentality?
For further explanation of the 'hijacks' v guaranteed delivery from Offutt allow me to refer you to my previous post or so (waiting for moderation so I can't give a number).

 

[SOMERLED]

i have been on no way uncivil in that post

i am asking you questions so that you address my points as you have been avoiding them? if it had been uncivil it would have been moderated

you were uncivil to me by saying that i had made staments i had not made, this is basically calling me a liar

you have not apologized for falsely accusing me of these statements?

who has the poor manners malcolm?

Kindly accept my apologies if I have offended you. No offence was meant.
Ask me any question you like. Do me a favour, just one question at a time please.

 

[pomeroo]

That would put you around the sixty years of age mark. You have been to Europe, presumeably England and you can't recall such an inconsequential matter. Why then am I a LIAR for doing the same as you?

You were lying when you pretended that your imaginary "military bad boys" actually exist. You have not yet apologized.

You were lying when you falsely claimed that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower: all available evidence--identified remains of the passengers, wreckage found at the crash site, transcripts of air traffic controllers--demonstrate conclusively that it did.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Forget about Jack White, deal with me.
This is me talking, do you see anything fake with regard to the 'bagman' ?

Please acknowledge what I wrote previously, and then I'll move on to the bagman images. Do you see what I mean concerning the yellow & black sign images?

 

[SpitfireIX]

. . . The main point to my post was that once you accept that 9/11 was an inside job, it must then follow that someone made a choice between taking a chance on four sets of hijackers, four times through security, actually sixteen times through security in four separate locations.
Take Occum's razor to that.

What is your evidence that the September 11 attacks were an "inside job," apart from the alleged implausibility of real hijackers' having pulled it off? You have to have ironclad proof apart from this before you can claim that the "fact" that there were no hijackers follows from the "fact" that it was an inside job, else you're using circular reasoning.

Also, you keep harping on the issue of "getting through security." As has been pointed out to you numerous times, knives under 4 inches (10 cm) blade length, GPS, and air navigation charts were all permitted through security on September 11, 2001. So why do you keep bringing it up?

Finally, there were 19 hijackers; not 16. And it's "Occam's (or occasionally Ockham's) razor."

Then you have four flight crews to acquiesce,
take Occums razor to that.

Yet again, in a fine display of 20/20 hindsight, you ignore the fact that prior to September 11, 2001, flight crews were trained to cooperate with hijackers. Do as the hijackers say. Take them where they want to go and let the authorities deal with the situation.

In 1971, a man using the alias "Dan Cooper" hijacked a Northwest Airlines 727 by claiming to have a bomb and using no other weapon. After receiving $200,000 and four parachutes in exchange for the passengers, he escaped by jumping from the rear exit of the plane, never to be seen again. This hijacking was copy-catted a few months later, but the perpetrator was caught after his parachute jump. Direct question, Malcolm. In these cases, why didn't the flight crew simply overpower the hijacker? By your logic, they should have been able to do that easily.

Four sets of passengers, the split second it takes for a pilot to get off a mayday, getting from hijack point to target, on and on the possibilities of something going wrong stack up.

Again, why didn't the passengers attack the hijackers on the parachute hijacking flights. And United 93 did get off a mayday, though it wasn't understood until the air-traffic control tape was played back later. Finally, as we have discussed repeatedly, the hijack pilots were all at least minimally qualified in air navigation, and may also have used hand-held GPS.

Look at the weather for example.
A lot of 'sceptics' scream 'clear weather'. But, how would you know the weather was going to be clear, when the decision was made weeks before?

Why do you believe the decision was made "weeks in advance?" Were you there? Or are you just assuming this because doing so suits your purpose? And what makes you think the hijackers didn't just wait until the weather was suitable? Why couldn' they have simply postponed their attack a few days or a week in case of bad weather.

It's total nonsense. The four 'hijacks' are the cover story.
No one would chance success or failure on such a scheme, when they had the guaranteed to hit the target option of a pre dawn take off from Offutt.
This is not rocket science.

Begging the question of whether the September 11 attacks were staged by elements within the US government.

If Sherlock Holmes were on this case, he would solve it between lighting his pipe and throwing the match away.

Only if he used "truther" methods and simply jumped to a conclusion based on what he believed, rather than what the evidence showed.

 

[gmarshall]

...As far as the Pentagon is concerned, two of the three systems you name require beacons or 'line of sight' technology. Landing on a carrier would best be done by beacon, in my opinion. You can line up (or the technology can) from miles and miles away. Too far left, too far right etc etc is how it started, that's for sure. You can't do that with the Pentagon, it's too low slung.
The other technology is GPS. Nothing wrong with that, but it's gyroscope steeing and by no means a small matter to swap everything over to the way a plane is steered.

I believe you are correct in that both aircraft landing systems require some sort of terminal guidance located at the landing site. It's my contention that it would be as easy to install these guidance systems at the Pentagon as it would be to load the building full of explosives. Remember that is how you claim the WTC aircraft were guided to their targets. Regarding the use of GPS and some auto control system, I fail to see the difference in converting an aircraft over to a cruise missile style guidance/control vs a remote control system ala your WTC military "bad boys". I realize we will not see eye to eye on this issue but the no plane theory for the Pentagon has always struck me as nonsensical from a government conspirator's perspective.

Regarding the IV bag, I still suggest you're too busy looking at minutia that prove very little. Because I have some recent experience with this topic (a close relative just spent 2 months in an ICU), I can relate that not a single bag of administered fluids/meds was pressurized. All of these meds were fed through positive displacement pumps so that the dosage could be accurately controlled. If pressurized, the flow would be overly high initially and would drop progressively until pressure equalized with the blood pressure. Flow of fluids would also stop before depletion of the bag. I can't say there are no such pressurized IV bags in existence but my recent experience eliminates a major hospital ICU. Sorry for the derail.
v/r
G

 

[Jennie C.]

How do we know a plane could fly from Logan to the twin towers?
Because ice cream has no bones.

Okay, I've been gone for several months, having been seduced by Sudoku, and not only enjoying it, but buying the stuff that between it and crosswords, I won't get Alzheimers (i'm 52).

But, despite my qualms about responding to an old post, I can't resist. The above is PRICELESS.

 

[Jennie C.]

After I took their test they kept sending me pleas to join "You're in the upper .5 of 1 percent of the population - don't you want to hang out with fellow eggheads?" This went on for about eight months.

Geez, I only made about 135, so I guess that wasn't worthy of spam.

Lucky me!!

 

[Trifikas]

So..wait.

the complaint is that Hijacking a plane and successfully hitting a building with it is somehow LESS likely than NOT being seen planting light poles and such in broad daylight close to rush hour on a busy highway?

And with regards to the 2nd White photo submitted for analsys, the fact that pole "2" is photographed in 2 different positions is proof of it being planted, because a pole hit by a plane wouldn't be able to be moved? Is that the argument with regard to that photo?

 

[SOMERLED]

Please acknowledge what I wrote previously, and then I'll move on to the bagman images. Do you see what I mean concerning the yellow & black sign images?

On the understanding that I have never heard of Jack White before this, but I had heard of three astronauts burning to death before they got off the ground
and I have also had the priviledge of sitting in the capsule in the Smithsonian and I take a jaundiced view of his views on the moon landings.
Also, on the understanding that I am referring to my own obsevations viz a viz these photos. I will honestly answer your question.
Also, let's have an end to the spelling bit. I have immediate family in the USA called Macdonald. McDonald amd Macdonnell.
The yellow black/sign.
I first see it on page one (chapter one) also yellow tub, cop car, red van and extra green grass.
Pg 2, Pentagon smoke totally different. I see same as page one and accept yellow tub obscured by 'rescuers'.
Pg 5. Closer up view of sign, now on two poles, but shadow of only one pole in previous photos. I would have expected something on the grass, people etc, but nothing on the grass.
Pg 6. I see wide general discrepancies in photos.
For the first time, I see a telegraph pole, but I DO NOT agree with White's analysis here. For me, the telegraph pole could be on the other side of the path nearer to the camera and therefore out of shot.

 

[SOMERLED]

What is your evidence that the September 11 attacks were an "inside job," apart from the alleged implausibility of real hijackers' having pulled it off? You have to have ironclad proof apart from this before you can claim that the "fact" that there were no hijackers follows from the "fact" that it was an inside job, else you're using circular reasoning.

Also, you keep harping on the issue of "getting through security." As has been pointed out to you numerous times, knives under 4 inches (10 cm) blade length, GPS, and air navigation charts were all permitted through security on September 11, 2001. So why do you keep bringing it up?

Finally, there were 19 hijackers; not 16. And it's "Occam's (or occasionally Ockham's) razor."




Yet again, in a fine display of 20/20 hindsight, you ignore the fact that prior to September 11, 2001, flight crews were trained to cooperate with hijackers. Do as the hijackers say. Take them where they want to go and let the authorities deal with the situation.

In 1971, a man using the alias "Dan Cooper" hijacked a Northwest Airlines 727 by claiming to have a bomb and using no other weapon. After receiving $200,000 and four parachutes in exchange for the passengers, he escaped by jumping from the rear exit of the plane, never to be seen again. This hijacking was copy-catted a few months later, but the perpetrator was caught after his parachute jump. Direct question, Malcolm. In these cases, why didn't the flight crew simply overpower the hijacker? By your logic, they should have been able to do that easily.




Again, why didn't the passengers attack the hijackers on the parachute hijacking flights. And United 93 did get off a mayday, though it wasn't understood until the air-traffic control tape was played back later. Finally, as we have discussed repeatedly, the hijack pilots were all at least minimally qualified in air navigation, and may also have used hand-held GPS.




Why do you believe the decision was made "weeks in advance?" Were you there? Or are you just assuming this because doing so suits your purpose? And what makes you think the hijackers didn't just wait until the weather was suitable? Why couldn' they have simply postponed their attack a few days or a week in case of bad weather.




Begging the question of whether the September 11 attacks were staged by elements within the US government.




Only if he used "truther" methods and simply jumped to a conclusion based on what he believed, rather than what the evidence showed.

You are joking with your first sentence. My very first post included very many fatcs, very few of which have been addressed. Since then I have been the only one to put any evidence down with regard to 175 NOT hitting tower 2.
No one, including yourself has put doen one shred of evidence to refute that claim, nothing at all.
To move on,
This is called "reasoning" and is a perfectly legitimate tool in finding the truth.
OKC has been shown to be an inside job and furthermore the Congress knows.
Here is cast iron PROOF of that.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/okm.htm
As I have said before, I'm confident that the Congress has now got some teeth and has decided not to hang out all the dirty washing in one go.
They might move a bit quicker now that they realise that thanks to the MSM support for BushCo and the MSM embargo on their efforts. All three, Buch, Cheney and the Congress are down to around 10 % approval ratings.
I hope this current congress can appreciate the amount of MSM involvement in all this.
I see it as them thinking they had got away free and clear with OKC and decided on 9/11. It mat well be that OKC was a precursor for 9/11.
A practice run to fine tune their grip on the MSM etc.
Then came the anthrax attack on Senator Leahy, I wouldn't hazard a guess, as to how many millions are now watching his back.
I'm hopeful that this will be the end of the MSM. They have big outgoings and why advertise on there, when the MSM can only now persuade 10 % to see things their way?
There is also every chance of the GOP biting the dust. It's happened a number of times over here, The Whigs, the Liberal Party, both gone for good, never to return. Let's hope it happens to the cancer riddled GOP. Either that that, or a prolonged dose of very painful chemotherapy. They have got some decent men in now, Senator Hagel comes to mind and Senator Specter of course.
In conclusion, argueing over what to do if the door to the flight deck was closed, or if someone carted a 'hijacker' etc are really yesterdays news.
I can see the attraction in being a brotherhood of skeptics, I've had a look at some other threads. This top heavy scepticism has kept you all somewhat behind the times. The debate now should revolve around not allowing the real perps to use some future Noam Chomsky to blame it all on BushCo and Buffet and use that as an excuse to show how democracy failed.
These banksters are both ruthless and clever. Clever, but not clever enough. Events are going to overtake both you all argueing that it wasn't an inside inside job and these murderous megalomaniacal elitists on steroids, who are up to their armpits in innocent blood.

 

[CptColumbo]

Also, you keep harping on the issue of "getting through security." As has been pointed out to you numerous times, knives under 4 inches (10 cm) blade length, GPS, and air navigation charts were all permitted through security on September 11, 2001. So why do you keep bringing it up?

To this point I'd like to add "boxcutters" qualified as "menacing" weapons under Hazardous Materials guidelines but were also considered "trade tools" by some airlines. The dual status of these blades caused much confusion for screeners, which were provided by private contractors (not the FAA or Federal government). Also security for the two flights out of Newark and Washington Dulles had been provided by Argenbright Holdings Ltd, a company which had pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges in May 2000 because they had hired 1,300 untrained security guards, including several dozens with criminal records, at Philadelphia International Airport. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/20/inv.airport.security/
This company, which was on probation at the time of the attack, had its probation extended to October 2005.

Besides if a terrorist had been prevented from carrying a knife onto an airplane, he/she could easily improvise a weapon.

Finally, there were 19 hijackers; not 16. And it's "Occam's (or occasionally Ockham's) razor."





Yet again, in a fine display of 20/20 hindsight, you ignore the fact that prior to September 11, 2001, flight crews were trained to cooperate with hijackers. Do as the hijackers say. Take them where they want to go and let the authorities deal with the situation.

In 1971, a man using the alias "Dan Cooper" hijacked a Northwest Airlines 727 by claiming to have a bomb and using no other weapon. After receiving $200,000 and four parachutes in exchange for the passengers, he escaped by jumping from the rear exit of the plane, never to be seen again. This hijacking was copy-catted a few months later, but the perpetrator was caught after his parachute jump. Direct question, Malcolm. In these cases, why didn't the flight crew simply overpower the hijacker? By your logic, they should have been able to do that easily.

Again, why didn't the passengers attack the hijackers on the parachute hijacking flights. And United 93 did get off a mayday, though it wasn't understood until the air-traffic control tape was played back later. Finally, as we have discussed repeatedly, the hijack pilots were all at least minimally qualified in air navigation, and may also have used hand-held GPS.

Also, many of the passengers may not have been immediately aware that anything was wrong, until it was too late, since prior to 9/11 curtains were used to partition the first class cabin from the rest of the plane. Since the hijackers were all in first class, the main cabin was probably unaware of what was going on. After 9/11/2001, most airlines have eliminated the curtains, as they pose a grave security risk and had little other purpose than to symbolically divide the cabins.

 

[SOMERLED]

So..wait.

the complaint is that Hijacking a plane and successfully hitting a building with it is somehow LESS likely than NOT being seen planting light poles and such in broad daylight close to rush hour on a busy highway?

And with regards to the 2nd White photo submitted for analsys, the fact that pole "2" is photographed in 2 different positions is proof of it being planted, because a pole hit by a plane wouldn't be able to be moved? Is that the argument with regard to that photo?

No, in photographs that have nothing to do with Jack White. Pole 2 can be seen both still in its original position = not hit by anything = still standing on its base. Then, in other photos, lying on the grass bank. There is no way to explain that, other than the planting of false evidence. In this case someone forgot to bring down or simply unbolt pole 2 from its base and take it away.
Conclusive proof of a fix.

 

[Rolfe]

Being ill mannered and obtuse is not the best way to influence people.

The main point to my post was that once you accept that 9/11 was an inside job, it must then follow that someone made a choice between taking a chance on four sets of hijackers, four times through security, actually sixteen times through security in four separate locations.

Take Occum's razor to that.

Then you have four flight crews to acquiesce,
take Occums razor to that.

Four sets of passengers, the split second it takes for a pilot to get off a mayday, getting from hijack point to target, on and on the possibilities of something going wrong stack up. Look at the weather for example.
A lot of 'sceptics' scream 'clear weather'. But, how would you know the weather was going to be clear, when the decision was made weeks before?

It's total nonsense. The four 'hijacks' are the cover story.

No one would chance success or failure on such a scheme, when they had the guaranteed to hit the target option of a pre dawn take off from Offutt.

This is not rocket science. If Sherlock Holmes were on this case, he would solve it between lighting his pipe and throwing the match away.

Malcolm, this seems to be your answer to my request for evidence that the hijackers (each, I presume) weighed only 6 stones. There is not one shred of a reference to this extraordinary claim in this post.

Now we have identities on the actual hijackers. If these are the people you are talking about, please present your evidence that any one of them weighed as little as six stones. On the other hand you seem to be claiming that there were no actual hijackers. Your reference then seems to be to hypothetical hijackers. I can only assume you are including as part of your objection to the hijack scenario the problem that the only people available to carry out the hijack weighed only six stones and were hung over. This is a quite extraordinary claim. I repeat my request to you to provide evidence that it would have been impossible to recruit anyone who weighed more than six stones and who was not hung over to carry out such an enterprise.

About 25 years ago, I picked up an IV bag and held it high, to be immediately ordered to put it back on the stretcher. I mentioned the need to hold the bag higher that the patient and was laughed at. Gravity feed had gone out years before. Those bags are mildly pressurised and will work equally well above or below the patient. Holding high such bags was for films and TV only. That was twenty five years ago. What do you think I thought when I first saw the bagman?

What do you think every doctor, nurse, medic, paramedic etc in the world will also think when they see that?

Same as me. Perfectly ordinary behaviour, nothing to remark on.

Malcolm, I don't know what remark you misunderstood 25 years ago, but drip bags are not pressurised. In any way. They can't be, they're made of flexible polythene, so that they collapse down as they empty. This is fact.

There are two ways to administer a drip.

One is to use an infusion pump, which is what GMarshall saw in the Intensive Care Unit. These instruments are quite expensive, but essential if it is important that the infusion be delivered at a very precise speed. This is likely to be the case if there are drugs in the infusion, which again is likely to be the case in an ICU. In this case, the elevation of the bag is not so important, but it is still essential that it is placed so that the tubing will always have liquid in it.

The other, and much more common way, is to use gravity. If the drip is simply fluid replacement therapy then the exact speed of infusion is not so crucial, and this cheap and simple method is more likely to be employed. It's what you'll see on any ordinary hospital ward, where the bag will be hooked on a drip stand. Some trolleys for moving patients have drip stands incorporated, and you'll sometimes even see patients shuffling to the loo, wheeling their drip stand with them.

It's extremely unlikely that any i/v fluid given at the site of an accident will have an infusion pump incorporated, and it is indeed necessary to elevate the fluid bag in that situation. It's true that if a patient is being moved quickly over a short distance on a stretcher then the bag may be laid on the stretcher for that journey, but little or no fluid will be delivered during that time. If the patient is severely hypovolaemic and the replacement is clinically vital, then someone will hold the bag up to prevent interruption of the flow.

Malcolm, you're wrong again. I you're seriously saying that because some film of an emergency rescue showed someone holding an i/v drip aloft, then it must have been faked, then I really don't know what you're orbiting.

Also, let's have an end to the spelling bit. I have immediate family in the USA called Macdonald. McDonald amd Macdonnell.

So, just because some names have more than one accepted spelling, you think it is fine for you just to make up your own spelling and stick with it?

Who do you think you are? GBS?

Rolfe.

 

[SOMERLED]

I believe you are correct in that both aircraft landing systems require some sort of terminal guidance located at the landing site. It's my contention that it would be as easy to install these guidance systems at the Pentagon as it would be to load the building full of explosives. Remember that is how you claim the WTC aircraft were guided to their targets. Regarding the use of GPS and some auto control system, I fail to see the difference in converting an aircraft over to a cruise missile style guidance/control vs a remote control system ala your WTC military "bad boys". I realize we will not see eye to eye on this issue but the no plane theory for the Pentagon has always struck me as nonsensical from a government conspirator's perspective.

Regarding the IV bag, I still suggest you're too busy looking at minutia that prove very little. Because I have some recent experience with this topic (a close relative just spent 2 months in an ICU), I can relate that not a single bag of administered fluids/meds was pressurized. All of these meds were fed through positive displacement pumps so that the dosage could be accurately controlled. If pressurized, the flow would be overly high initially and would drop progressively until pressure equalized with the blood pressure. Flow of fluids would also stop before depletion of the bag. I can't say there are no such pressurized IV bags in existence but my recent experience eliminates a major hospital ICU. Sorry for the derail.
v/r
G

With a bit of goodwill, we can reach agreement here. You first metioned three systems. Two require a homing beacon, the third system you mentioned (cruise missile) does not.
The twins obviously lend themselves to a homing beacon. There is nothing to interfere with such great heights, they scream out 'homing beacons'.
I do not subscribe to a homing beacon for the Pentagon because it is so low lying. There are also airports with all their competing signals. You can practically throw a brick from the Pentagon to either Reagan or Dulles.
A cruise missile has to be the preference for the Pentagon and it requires no homing beacon. However, transferring the nuts and bolts of steering etc from gyroscopes to a plane is risky and untried.
Now a flyover emerges as favourite.
There are other factors which agree with a flyover.
You are obviously a mature person and I don't want to talk down to you. If this next bit appears that way then forgive me, I don't mean it.
Try to adopt the proper investigators mentality for a moment. It is not to question everything that comes in and demand absolute proof. Quite the opposite really.
The best investigative route is to embrace every suspicion, every nuance as if it were certainly true. Give the suspicion every chance to live, feed it, water it, watch it grow. Sometimes it withers and dies and you have to move on. But always give it a chance to bloom.
For example, the hot dog seller did it. Ten seconds tells you the guy has no friends. no money, no motive and no car. All in all = he didn't do it.
Let's move on to the next suspicion. Suddenly every new revelation nourishes, supports, waters this suspicion. All the time, it is growing.
Give it every chance, it grows and finally blooms and there you have it - the truth.
Give a remote controlled flight from Offutt that chance and you will see it blossom into the truth. After a while you will realise that there is just too much for it not to be true. The next step is to know for sure.
It's the truth you are seeking. Don't fight it, give it every chance.
Now, back to the flyover.
Here's some new info, a flyover is a dicey proposition. You would be rolling right into both Reagan's and Dulles' flight paths. This could be curtains for the flyover bit. The game would be up straight away if that happened. Hmm, maybe better kiss that idea goodbye.
But wait, what do I see? A get all the planes out of the sky order. Now, wait until all the planes are on the ground at Reagan and Dulles, then in with the overflight, a low left up the Potomac and Hello Dulles, here we come.
Now the overflight fits again and conforms with the new info. A few of those and you know.
Give truth a chance, it will never let you down.

 

[SOMERLED]

I believe you are correct in that both aircraft landing systems require some sort of terminal guidance located at the landing site. It's my contention that it would be as easy to install these guidance systems at the Pentagon as it would be to load the building full of explosives. Remember that is how you claim the WTC aircraft were guided to their targets. Regarding the use of GPS and some auto control system, I fail to see the difference in converting an aircraft over to a cruise missile style guidance/control vs a remote control system ala your WTC military "bad boys". I realize we will not see eye to eye on this issue but the no plane theory for the Pentagon has always struck me as nonsensical from a government conspirator's perspective.

Regarding the IV bag, I still suggest you're too busy looking at minutia that prove very little. Because I have some recent experience with this topic (a close relative just spent 2 months in an ICU), I can relate that not a single bag of administered fluids/meds was pressurized. All of these meds were fed through positive displacement pumps so that the dosage could be accurately controlled. If pressurized, the flow would be overly high initially and would drop progressively until pressure equalized with the blood pressure. Flow of fluids would also stop before depletion of the bag. I can't say there are no such pressurized IV bags in existence but my recent experience eliminates a major hospital ICU. Sorry for the derail.
v/r
G

I'm no medical man and will accept that 'pressurised' is the wrong word.
However, the main argument is still true. There is no necessity to hold up such a bag, they are not gravity fed. No one remotely connected to medical work, would hold up such a bag. Ergo, the pictures are staged.