[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[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 don't suggest that the Pentagon was 'loaded' with explosives. I believe it was hit by a missile. My own pet theory, (which I do not need to argue to show that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane) is that a fireball/smoke cloud masked the flyover. Then a couple of seconds or so later a missile was fired from the ground to do the proper damage.

 

[Belz...]

The fact that someone planted the 'felled' pole whilst still leaving the original pole in place, gives the lie to your assertion that these perps are ultra competent.

Again, how did they manage to plant it in front of all those people ? Or did they do it during the night and nobody noticed that the poles were missing that morning ?

How did they do it, Malcolm ?

Here it is standing and marked as felled, check the whole page out, there's other stuff but knidly just refer to just pole 2 at the moment

Okay, Malcolm. What about pole 2 ?

 

[Belz...]

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.

Again you show your misunderstanding of what Occam's Razor is. Please read up.

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

No need. Collaboration was the standard operating procedure in case of hijacks pre-9/11. Didn't you know ?

Four sets of passengers, the split second it takes for a pilot to get off a mayday

And the extra split second required to get his throat slit.

getting from hijack point to target, on and on the possibilities of something going wrong stack up. Look at the weather for example.

You're again trying to argue from probabilities for an event that happened. Wasn't it explained to you that the probability for an event that already happened is always 1 ?

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?

Who cares ? It's irrelevant to the issue. Clear weather or no, you'll hit those towers.

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

Argument from incredulity.

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.

That's because you're assuming that, in BOTH CASES, it's an inside job. But you're clearly ignoring many other possibilities, because you've already decided what your conclusion is.

This is not rocket science.

No, indeed, but it's clearly beyond your ability to comprehend. Real scientists don't start with their conclusion, Malcolm. You're completely missing the truth because you've already decided on what it should be.

 

[Belz...]

You are joking with your first sentence. My very first post included very many fatcs, very few of which have been addressed.

Your opinion that the hijacks were improbable does not constitute evidence, Malcolm.

Since then I have been the only one to put any evidence down with regard to 175 NOT hitting tower 2.

Your incredulity that the plane that hit 2 WTC was actually fligth 175 does not constitude evidence, Malcolm.

This is called "reasoning" and is a perfectly legitimate tool in finding the truth.

Yes, indeed, but only when it's backed by evidence. Not conjecture, not opinion, not speculation, not incredulity. Evidence.

OKC has been shown to be an inside job and furthermore the Congress knows.

Everything has been shown to be an inside job according to some. That doesn't make it so.

I see it as them thinking they had got away free and clear with OKC and decided on 9/11.

What you "see it as" is irrelevant.

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.

Are you going to present evidence at one point ? Because I've got an urge to start my own make-believe story, now.

 

[twinstead]

I don't suggest that the Pentagon was 'loaded' with explosives. I believe it was hit by a missile. My own pet theory, (which I do not need to argue to show that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane) is that a fireball/smoke cloud masked the flyover. Then a couple of seconds or so later a missile was fired from the ground to do the proper damage.

Oh, you're one of THOSE. All the eye witnesses to the crash were fooled by the fireball 'slight-of-hand' which made them miss a screaming jet plane pulling up at the last minute and flying over the Pentagon, and all the huge amount of physical evidence was planted.

In fact, none of the few witnesses cherry-picked by your movement to try to prove a flyover witnessed a flyover as well. In fact, nobody from any angle on this bright, cloudless late summer day saw a plane pull up and fly over the Pentagon.

So, that must mean the plane obviously pulled up and flew over the Pentagon...

 

[Rolfe]

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.

Malcolm, you're wrong. The bags do have to be held up.

We've plenty of people more than remotely connected to the medical world on the forum, although most of them don't stop by here very often. How many of them do you need to explain to you that you misunderstood something 25 years ago?

Rolfe.

 

[MortFurd]

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.

Wrongo, bucko.

Gravity drip.

In case you were wondering, gravity flow equipment isn't obsolete. Current Wolf catalog page showing gravity flow IV sets. Gravity flow is used for non- critical applications such as hydration (saline solution to keep patients who can't drink from drying out) or emergency conditions where you can't set up a pump, or high flow applications where the patient needs blood fast.

Either A) keep your trap shut about things you know nothing about or B) expend a little Google-Fu and save yourself some embarrassment

 

[apathoid]

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.

Did I not explain this to you very much in-depth several pages ago, Malcolm? Boeing 757s are already cruise missiles and they already have installed, from the assembly line at Boeing, 3 helium-neon ring laser gyros for each axis of flight - for extremely accurate attitude and heading information as well as latitude and longitude. They also have 3 autopilot systems which can "home" any altitude/airspeed/latlong waypoint the pilot enters in the Flight Management Computer. It would be a snap to use the FMC for an attack run at the Pentagon. The only dilemma would be getting the thing in the air with no pilots(we discussed that too) - programming the attack would be the easy part. That is not speculation; that is my professional opinion.

Now a flyover emerges as favourite.
There are other factors which agree with a flyover.
{snipped some stuff}
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.

The flyover is possibly stupidest theory in the history of mankind. The Pentagon is flanked on all sides by very busy highways, it was rush hour, it was broad daylight. In my opinion it is not possible to think a plane crashed when it didn't when you are in position to actually see either the impact or nonimpact - it's not like everyones view was obstructed. It's impossible times 100 to think that every single witness on record thought the plane crashed when it didn't. I actually can't understand how anyone would believe this....

Malcolm, if 9/11 was a conspiracy orchestrated by the government, I can promise you that a)there was a plane(maybe even a 757!) and b)it didn't fly over. It impacted the Pentagon.

 

[MortFurd]

Here, Malcolm. Have a look at what knowledgeable people have to say about IVs.

 

[SOMERLED]

Wrongo, bucko.

Gravity drip.

In case you were wondering, gravity flow equipment isn't obsolete. Current Wolf catalog page showing gravity flow IV sets. Gravity flow is used for non- critical applications such as hydration (saline solution to keep patients who can't drink from drying out) or emergency conditions where you can't set up a pump, or high flow applications where the patient needs blood fast.

Either A) keep your trap shut about things you know nothing about or B) expend a little Google-Fu and save yourself some embarrassment

This is a combined post to yourself, Rolfe and any other drip feeds.
Now I remember why I never fancied being a schoolteacher.
Altogether now, after me,
In order to have GRAVITY feed, you must first have GRAVITY.
No BIG hole in the top of the bag = no chance for GRAVITY to act = the photo is staged.
Would you all now kindly apply your combined talents to lamp pole No.2. Which is photographed both lying on the grass bank and still standing.

 

[Belz...]

I don't suggest that the Pentagon was 'loaded' with explosives. I believe it was hit by a missile.

One question, Malcolm: WHY NOT JUST CRASH A PLANE IN IT ?

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.

I'll tell that to the nurse, next time I've got an IV plugged into me.

Last time was in November, by the way.

 

[SOMERLED]

Oh, you're one of THOSE. All the eye witnesses to the crash were fooled by the fireball 'slight-of-hand' which made them miss a screaming jet plane pulling up at the last minute and flying over the Pentagon, and all the huge amount of physical evidence was planted.

In fact, none of the few witnesses cherry-picked by your movement to try to prove a flyover witnessed a flyover as well. In fact, nobody from any angle on this bright, cloudless late summer day saw a plane pull up and fly over the Pentagon.

So, that must mean the plane obviously pulled up and flew over the Pentagon...

Sleight of hand. The only eye witnesses were driving cars. Not the most conducive of circumstances for perfect observation of a two second event.
Perhaps you might observe the two poles No 2.

 

[VespaGuy]

The hits just keep coming, don't they?

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.

Surprise, surprise! Malcolm's wrong again!

And for those keeping score, here's just a small list of Malcolm's lies, distortions and mistakes from this thread.

There are flight engineers on every commercial long haul flight.

Don't forget, it's a cloudy september day.

NY is 200 miles away and covered by clouds.

Govt policy is, because there's a war on, that all hardwear is obsolete after two years.

That's why the twins went UP, before they came down.

You know very well that the supposed hijackers couldn't fly a kite.

The wings leading edges etc, were reinforced, so that they could slice into the facade of the towers. In the same way that a couple of years ago, in Europe, a USAF fighter plane sliced through the cables on a cable car way, in the Alps

No such a thing as a transitive verb

Verb transitive = correct.
Transitve verb = incorrect.

Ce la vie = short for C'est la vie.

A B52 hit the Empire State.

There is no such word as 'fantastical'.

Fire alone has never dropped a steel framed building and never will.

There was practically nothing to burn in the building at all. The corridors were not carpeted, neither were the bulk of the offices.

I'll donate 1,000 dollars to any charity of your choice, if you can find one occassion before 9/11 when whackjob, as POTUS, spent some time in a kindergarten with the little ones.

Keep 'em coming, Malcolm!!

 

[SOMERLED]

Again, how did they manage to plant it in front of all those people ? Or did they do it during the night and nobody noticed that the poles were missing that morning ?

How did they do it, Malcolm ?



Okay, Malcolm. What about pole 2 ?

You can see two poles, both pole No.2.
One is lying on the grass bank. The other is still fixed in place.
Aint that a doosey.

 

[SOMERLED]

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.




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.




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.

Consider the phrase 'six stone hung over wastrels' as poetic license that does not alter the subject matter.

 

[SOMERLED]

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.


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.

You seem quite knowledgeable about the 'hijacks'. Tell me, do you see any potential for upset with regard to taking over the planes?

 

[SOMERLED]

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.

Did you not find it just a little bit funny?

 

[Mashuna]

This is a combined post to yourself, Rolfe and any other drip feeds.
Now I remember why I never fancied being a schoolteacher.
Altogether now, after me,
In order to have GRAVITY feed, you must first have GRAVITY.
No BIG hole in the top of the bag = no chance for GRAVITY to act = the photo is staged.

What on earth are you talking about? You want a hole in the bag to let the gravity in?

 

[MortFurd]

This is a combined post to yourself, Rolfe and any other drip feeds.
Now I remember why I never fancied being a schoolteacher.
Altogether now, after me,
In order to have GRAVITY feed, you must first have GRAVITY.
No BIG hole in the top of the bag = no chance for GRAVITY to act = the photo is staged.
Would you all now kindly apply your combined talents to lamp pole No.2. Which is photographed both lying on the grass bank and still standing.

There is NEVER a big hole in the top of an IV bag. And there's no need for a hole for gravity to act.

You really should learn to read before you embarass yourself. If you are using a bag, there's no need at all to relieve the vacuum that the out flowing liquid would cause in a bottle. The bag just collapses, all OK. In a bottle system, there's a mechanism to allow air back into the bottle to relieve the vacuum.

 

[twinstead]

Consider the phrase 'six stone hung over wastrels' as poetic license that does not alter the subject matter.

I can't believe you didn't address a single thing he said in that post. Don't you have any comment at all about the drip bag issue? ANY?