Why fake the SoC path?

[TheLoneBedouin]

They deliberately picked a date when they knew there would be extra security? They decided to make the damn thing harder to pull off?

Aren't you assuming who the conspirators are? Well, you are the "physics is not based on logic" person.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Breathe easy Grizzly Bear. It was me who asked why they would even do the flyover. Our truther pal just got a bit overwhelmed by the all the flak we are throwing his way.

Uh, no. As I said in my reply to Chillzero, the OP was addressed in post #15. If she is asking "Why plan it this way?" this means she either:

a) Can't read.

b) Is confusing the question of "Why NOC?" with "Why flyover?".

Since apparently none of you can read, here is my answer again:

The gist of it is that the decoy jet was meant to fool most people into believing that it hit the building but the 2nd plane cover story would be out there as an explanation for the people who actually saw it fly over or away from the building.

So it would be close enough to the damage to fool people but also a bit off track to more easily be written off as a "2nd plane".

Stories of a "2nd plane" shadowing it and flying away at the time of the explosion were floated in the media and reinforced with a few planted witnesses. We know for a fact there was no "shadowing" plane but we also know that a few dubious accounts and media reports qutie explicitely floated this notion within the first days of the event.

Btw, since none of you seem to know this, it's clear that you haven't even looked at the evidence at all. It is plainly stated in "The Second Plane Cover Story".

 

[apathoid]

The wanted to have control over the damage.

Uhhhh ok, to what end? Why did they need to "control" the damage to the building? To limit casualty count? Was it ok to kill 125 Pentagon workers but not 250? To do only 50 million USD in damage but not 100 million?
Why?!

Furthermore, you believe that "contolling the damage" is worth blowing the whole cover story?

There is certainly evidence of explosives. Why don't you ask April Gallop- she was right next to the impact and saw no jet fuel, no plane parts, no passengers. She doesn't believe a plane hit the building, but she's just a stupid truther, right?

I am familiar with April Gallop. But where did she ever describe seeing explosives being planted? See my link a few posts above for reports of jet fuel. I also dont need her to tell me there were no plane parts, I've seen the pictures. So unless they were taken at some other Pentagon, safe to say shes simply mistaken.

Lets not cherry pick our witnesses ok TLB? I can link lots of people who describe aircraft parts, body parts and jet fuel.

This is simply an argument from incredulity. If you wanted to create controlled damage to a building, explosives would be a logical choice..

There you go again, making it sound like controlling the damage was an obvious priority......I guess thats about the only explantion that doesnt sound insane ?

I would think the priority would be to adhere to the script. Script says airplane hits Pentagon. Need airplane to hit Pentagon. Eliminates need for explosives planters and plane parts planters. Eliminates need to plant eyewitnesses and cab drivers. Eliminates need to silence air traffic controllers. Conspiracy smaller. Better chance for success.

 

[dtugg]

I can read. That is how I know your explanation for why they allegedly flew on a totally different flight path than the one that was allegedly faked is incredibly stupid, makes no sense, and would not work. You are one of the only people in the entire world who is far gone enough to think your explanation is rational. Good thing for me, since I don't have to kill myself.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Craig, aka TLB

Do you think April was looking for plane parts? Or sniffing around for Jet Fuel? She just had a ceiling cave in on her. Her baby son was severely injured...she was escaping.

You and your fantasy are over. The ONLY attention you get is from this website. Time to go out and get a job with Alpo and captain boob.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Uh, no. As I said in my reply to Chillzero, the OP was addressed in post #15. If she is asking "Why plan it this way?" this means she either:

a) Can't read.

I believe she, and the rest of us are reading your answers just fine.

b) Is confusing the question of "Why NOC?" with "Why flyover?".

I understand a side topic may have been introduced earlier, but no, there is no confusion. The OP is very clear on what is asked, what purpose does faking the SOC path serve if it were to ultimately lead to the same outcome that you all presume to have been the case. It's a very simple question, what is more significant about FAKING the path rather than actually USING it?

You and others claim it is to give an illusion of impact, so what significance does using a false path serve in catalyzing this "illusion"?

Since apparently none of you can read, here is my answer again:

No need, it still does not address the core question.

 

[uruk]

CIT's theory is absolutly stupid when you consider why the conspirators would go through the trouble of devising a rediculously overly complex flyover manuver when they could have easily crashed the plane into the building for real.

Oh yea , the argument that the conspirators wanted a specific part of the Pentagon hit and didn't want to take chances. Please! We have smart missles and targeting systems that put ordenace through a window or down a chimney, so that argument is stupid.

Face it CIT. Logic is against you. physics is against you, and the truth is against you.

 

[Senenmut]

TLB-
911files posted some radar data a couple of days ago. i was wondering if you saw that??
if you did, was the plane north of the citgo on his data?
it showed what he said was 77 going into the pentagon then the c130 showed up afterwards.
if you did see it and it was not north of citgo, how do you think the radar would be altered.

im just wondering what your thoughts are. ive been looking into the whole ptech software thing. very interesting people got that software business up and going!!

 

[Baylor]

TLB, how did you get this:

TLB
[Roseborough] reports hearing a 'lion's roar' above his head and seeing the plane fly away over the south parking lot, corroborating Roberts.

from this:

Roseborough

It caught my attention, and as I looked up, I heard another roar and I saw this airplane flying low. I thought, 'Oh, my God, this thing is really low.' I thought it was going to crash onto the highway, just as I thought that, I saw a fireball come from over the Pentagon. I was just standing there dumbfounded, thinking, 'What just happened?'"

 

[apathoid]

Oh yea , the argument that the conspirators wanted a specific part of the Pentagon hit and didn't want to take chances. Please! We have smart missles and targeting systems that put ordenace through a window or down a chimney, so that argument is stupid.

Yeah thats the part I don't understand. If there are certain people in on the conspiracy that you dont want getting killed; wouldn't you just have them be in another wedge or gone from the Pentagon completely? Otherwise, why would the perps care where the plane hits or how much damage it inflicts? Thats where TLB lost me. Rule #1 of conspiracy planning, make the conspiracy as small as possible. Lytes theory kinda tends to make the conspiracy as big as possible, and needlessly so.

 

[Hokulele]

Aren't you assuming who the conspirators are?

Aren't you assuming who they weren't?

Well, you are the "physics is not based on logic" person.

Heh, so you still have no clue as to what Natural Philosophy concerns, even after having it explained in two threads. Is an adversity to education a requirement for accepting a fruitcake of a theory?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Wow, you guys are slower than usual today.

Uhhhh ok, to what end? Why did they need to "control" the damage to the building?

I already linked to one possibility for motive in my last post.

Furthermore, you believe that "contolling the damage" is worth blowing the whole cover story?

Why would this blow the cover story? No one is aware of the offical reports. Most people in the area think the official story has Flight 77 flying over DC.

I am familiar with April Gallop. But where did she ever describe seeing explosives being planted? See my link a few posts above for reports of jet fuel. I also dont need her to tell me there were no plane parts, I've seen the pictures. So unless they were taken at some other Pentagon, safe to say shes simply mistaken.

Were those pictures taken seconds after the attack? All of the alleged debris from Flight 77 has not been positively identified and are small enough to be planted. There are plenty reports of "secondary explosives".

Lets not cherry pick our witnesses ok TLB? I can link lots of people who describe aircraft parts, body parts and jet fuel.

Any independently confirmed? Where is the luggage? Where are the wings and why didn't they damage the building? Where's the tail/vertical stabilizer?

I would think the priority would be to adhere to the script. Script says airplane hits Pentagon. Need airplane to hit Pentagon. Eliminates need for explosives planters and plane parts planters. Eliminates need to plant eyewitnesses and cab drivers. Eliminates need to silence air traffic controllers. Conspiracy smaller. Better chance for success.

Still an arument from incredulity. Perhaps destroying certain information held in the Pentagon gives the conspiracy a greater chance of success. Knowledge is power, after all.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Oh yea , the argument that the conspirators wanted a specific part of the Pentagon hit and didn't want to take chances. Please! We have smart missles and targeting systems that put ordenace through a window or down a chimney, so that argument is stupid.

So... a travelling explosive that is far away from a target is more accurate than a stationary explosive that is near a target?

 

[uruk]

Yeah thats the part I don't understand. If there are certain people in on the conspiracy that you dont want getting killed; wouldn't you just have them be in another wedge or gone from the Pentagon completely? Otherwise, why would the perps care where the plane hits or how much damage it inflicts? Thats where TLB lost me. Rule #1 of conspiracy planning, make the conspiracy as small as possible. Lytes theory kinda tends to make the conspiracy as big as possible, and needlessly so.

I've been coming to the conclusion that the conspiracy theory belief system is similar to the religious belief system. In order for you to accept the initial tennant, you have to buy the rest of the baggage to make the whole belief system work.

The complexity usually arises in order to explain away all the facts that opposes your belief. And, of course, that happened to CIT when they started with a preconcieved conclusion and then sought out to find anything, no matter how farfetched or incredulous to support that conclusion.

on an aside, I recently spoke to a friend of mind who note that the one thing all conspiracy theorists have in common is that they go through great pains to construct anddisseminate thier theories but do nothing to bring the conspiracists to trial or to face justice. They seem perfectly content to wring thier hands and hock thier books and DVDs but nothing more.

I guess it would be bad for business to actualy bring conspiracists to justice.

 

[dtugg]

Hey Craig.....er TLB, how does it feel to belong to a cult that is much smaller (and about as crazy) as Tom Cruise's?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Hey Craig.....er TLB, how does it feel to belong to a cult that is much smaller (and about as crazy) as Tom Cruise's?

Craig, in his deviation from the OP, continues to pretend that the damage to the Pentagon lacks all qualities of what he wants it to be. I've been pressuring him to put up or shut up about his speculations, but it seems I can look forward to nothing but the same evasion without giving a hint of notice to the information he's been given.

And he continues to refuse to answer the pertinent question coming from the OP. If this is the measure he expects to go by in his standard of evidence he is sorely lacking

 

[JoeyDonuts]

So... a travelling explosive that is far away from a target is more accurate than a stationary explosive that is near a target?

I wouldn't say more accurate.

JDAM/JSOW or even a TLAM are extraordinarily accurate and would have had no problem impacting the Pentagon at exactly the point of the airliner's impact. The damage pattern from a JDAM/JSOW would have reflected its downward trajectory, however. A TLAM definitely could have hit the building straight and level. However, not only is the blast effect at the Pentagon inconsistent with that of a TLAM's unitary warhead - but not a single eyewitness saw a TLAM.

The damage at the Pentagon doesn't line up with that of a stationary explosive either. I don't think there's a shaped charge in existence that could have punched a "clean" hole through the walls in the exact diameter of a 757's fuselage.

How about we go with a truck mounted Hutchison Effect Ray Gun coupled with an enormous pyrotechnic spectacle that would make Great White jealous? It's just as plausible as the other things you've suggested.

 

[uruk]

So... a travelling explosive that is far away from a target is more accurate than a stationary explosive that is near a target?

That's a lame counter argument.

Serruptiously planting explosives in a busy military office building has a higher risk of exposure and detection than actually crashing a plane into the building.

Not to mention hoping the detonator doesn't fail or premature detonation, timing the explosion, having the fly over plane not crash past the Pentagon due to FOD or flying debris, risk unabiguous fly-over witnesses, (you would not be able to fool everybody from every viewing angle even with a 2nd decoy plane.)

I think rediculous complexity in a conspiracy theory is an indication that the theory is faulty.

 

[Baylor]

I'll go in truther mode for two seconds and answer the question for him, since he's ripped a page out of Homeland Insecurity's playbook of answering a question with an incoherent response.

[twoof mode]

Hey dtugg, you Bush lover, they faked the damage at a 43 angle because they wanted to pretend that Hanjour overshot the pentagon, then turned around and came in from the southwest. The reason why the pilot of the F-35 decoy jet came in NoC is because that gave him a smooth path to Reagan, which would go unnoticed by DC residents, as mentioned in the new SMOKING GUN Pilots for Truth video.[/twoof mode]

Bleh, I feel all disgusting just going in twoof mode.

Anyhoo that would be a typical twoof-type response, not "media parroting of Wheelhouse..."

 

[apathoid]

I already linked to one possibility for motive in my last post.

Ah, basically the ole Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Since the Navy Command Center was hit, it must've not only been targeted, but was the prime motivation behind attacking the Pentagon. I see, it's clear now.

Why would this blow the cover story? No one is aware of the offical reports. Most people in the area think the official story has Flight 77 flying over DC.

Yes but not making a practice dive bomb run.

Were those pictures taken seconds after the attack? All of the alleged debris from Flight 77 has not been positively identified and are small enough to be planted. There are plenty reports of "secondary explosives".


Any independently confirmed? Where is the luggage? Where are the wings and why didn't they damage the building? Where's the tail/vertical stabilizer?

If you want to discuss evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon, bump the relevant thread.

Still an arument from incredulity. Perhaps destroying certain information held in the Pentagon gives the conspiracy a greater chance of success. Knowledge is power, after all.

They have this neat contraption for that...and its not RdX, Cordite, Gunpowder or Therm*te. Please tell me your joking.