NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[T.A.M.]

The problem with the labels is they have let to (at times) mocking obfuscation. Perhaps a new labeling system is in order.

Planers

No Planes Crashed ers
No Planes at all ers (ie CGI ers)

TAM

 

[Miragememories]

So what hit the Pentagon and the towers? You guys are hard to follow.

There were lots of planes in the air.

"No planers" usually refers to the bs about WTC.

With respect to the Pentagon, you are correct, the northern flightpath witnesses
create a solid case against the official flightpath.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

LOL, and you flew heavy jets? Good one.

Wrong, as a pilot you are expected to hit a zone on the runway, you don't have the whole runway, you flunk.

In a large heavy jet, we actually go through a point about 35 feet above the end of the runway and touchdown about 750 feet. Some planes are so heavy they can't adjust and touch down late, they will crash and run off the end. Pilots are able to hit vertically this aim-point of 35 feet in the air, using an aim-point down the runway. This means on the WTC the terrorist vertical aim-point is 1300 feet, and usually a trained pilot makes good the 35 foot range within feet. OOPS.
The width of some runways the terrorists used were 40 feet wide. The WTC was 207 feet wide and the Pentagon was so wide a moron could hit it. OOPS, means CIT could fly a jet and crash into something as large as the Pentagon.

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/food-for-thought-dwain-deets-supports-cit-flyover-theory/



Best source, CIT? Source for weed? meth? lies? nonsense? Not facts and evidence.

daPlane flew over the Pentagon

I have read reports from veteran pilots who claim that hitting the Towers
using a simulator was extremely difficult.

Of course being God's gift to aviation, I'm sure you could hit a pea in its pod
in your sleep.

MM

 

[T.A.M.]

lol...I love it....

Official Account - Plane Parts, DNA, eye witnesses, crash site in keeping with plane crash.

truthers say they have a weak case

CIT - handful of witnesses who upon being interviewed YEARS later, trying to recall an instant in time, provide details that make a couple of idiots believe the flight path was different.

truthers (well the few CIT loyalists) call this a SOLID case.

Oh my

TAM

 

[The Big Dog]

There were lots of planes in the air.

"No planers" usually refers to the bs about WTC.

With respect to the Pentagon, you are correct, the northern flightpath witnesses
create a solid case against the official flightpath. that a plane hit the pentagon.

MM

fixed that for ya, buddy!

But I see, No Planers at the Pentagon look down on the No Planers at the WTC.

Kind of a hierarchy, huh, kinda like how the pond scum floating on top of the water looks down at the pond scum on the bottom of the water.

 

[T.A.M.]

fixed that for ya, buddy!

But I see, No Planers at the Pentagon look down on the No Planers at the WTC.

Kind of a hierarchy, huh, kinda like how the pond scum floating on top of the water looks down at the pond scum on the bottom of the water.

Heirarchy (From top to bottom)...

LIHOPers
MIHOPers - Planers
MIHOPers - No Planers (crashed), CIT/PFT
MIHOPers - No Planers (at all), Ace/current JREF truther majority

TAM

 

[BigAl]

There were lots of planes in the air.

"No planers" usually refers to the bs about WTC.

With respect to the Pentagon, you are correct, the northern flightpath witnesses
create a solid case against the official flightpath.

MM

How do they explain the fact that the bodies of everyone that boarded Flight 77 were identified in the debris of essentially the entire airplane buried inside the Pentagon. The black boxes were recovered. The audio box records Arabic language and a hijacking. The data box shows a flight path that agrees with the FAA radar track and that the plane was being flown on manual by the hijackers control right to the end.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Heirarchy (From top to bottom)...

LIHOPers
MIHOPers - Planers
MIHOPers - No Planers (crashed), CIT/PFT
MIHOPers - No Planers (at all), Ace/current JREF truther majority

TAM

Nice "heirarchy" there, T.A.M. Thoughtful that you left an empty line between the "No Planers (at all)" and yourself. Could be useful for future developments.

 

[The Big Dog]

How do they explain the fact that the bodies of everyone that boarded Flight 77 were identified in the debris of essentially the entire airplane buried inside the Pentagon. The black boxes were recovered. The audio box records Arabic language and a hijacking. The data box shows a flight path that agrees with the FAA radar track and that the plane was being flown on manual by the hijackers control right to the end.

Well, ya see, the Buffet Slayer has a theory on that. The construction trailers that were there could easily have been refrigerated and held body parts that could have been liberally sprinkled around the crash site.

But why ask me, Mr. Deets read a nice little statement endorsing CIT.

Mr. Deets, quick question, Lloyde England, knowing pawn in a massive conspiracy or the lynch pin of the whole damn operation?

The CIT tree fort lights (and bongs) have burned late into the night debating that issue, I can assure you.

Maybe we should have TWO moderated threads! One thread for the whole WTC thing, and one for the CIT No Planer thing!

 

[beachnut]

I have read reports from veteran pilots who claim that hitting the Towers
using a simulator was extremely difficult.

Of course being God's gift to aviation, I'm sure you could hit a pea in its pod
in your sleep.

MM

p4t are not pilots first, they are paranoid nuts on 911 first.

They must be bad pilots, because I put kids who never flew in a large aircraft simulator and they could hit targets as small as 150 feet right in the center. Pilots who can't hit buildings in simulators can't hit runways. It is called failure.

I can hit targets within inches in a plane going as fast or slow as I want.

My great uncle could pick up handkerchief from the ground with his wingtip, I can land within inches of a target. So? I am average, my classmates from UPT can beat me!

Why are you so good at finding pilots who can't.


Gage does not support flyover lies any more?

Earlier this year I wrote a review of CIT's "National Security Alert" in which I recommended that we all take a closer at the eyewitness accounts supporting the "North path" of American Airlines Flight 77 at the Pentagon. CIT's investigation includes detailed in-person interviews which appeared quite compelling. As AE911Truth's focus is the destruction of three buildings at WTC, I didn't perform an exhaustive review of CIT's material and methods. My quick statement should not be portrayed as an endorsement of CIT's conclusion that the airliner "flew over" the Pentagon.

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Now CIT needs Deets' delusions.

Deets says:

The only possible conclusion, if logic is your guide, is that the plane did not hit the Pentagon and did not cause the damage; that the south-path downed light poles were staged; and that the internal damage was done by other means, specifically internal explosives.

The suck-a-boom explosives, with thousands of gallons of jet fuel fireball simulator, and DNA injector, and plane parts delivery system.

What super secret device makes an impact exactly like flight 77 going 480 knots? It is safe in the mind of a retired NASA guy, who RAM DUMP-ed on exit. Mr Deets? What went wrong?

Funny stuff, witnesses saw 77 impact the lamp posts. OOPS, CIT witnesses agree 77 knocked down the lampposts, and impacted the Pentagon. OOPS

 

[Miragememories]

lol...I love it....

Official Account - Plane Parts, DNA, eye witnesses, crash site in keeping with plane crash.

truthers say they have a weak case

CIT - handful of witnesses who upon being interviewed YEARS later, trying to recall an instant in time, provide details that make a couple of idiots believe the flight path was different.

truthers (well the few CIT loyalists) call this a SOLID case.

Oh my

TAM

A handful?

A thousand would never satisfy your dogma.

An easy view of a northern flightpath by 2 cops who are pro-OCT makes for a good case.

The idiots are those who succumb to what what they wish to believe and
continue to ignore evidence to the contrary.

MM

 

[The Big Dog]

A handful?

A thousand would never satisfy your dogma.

An easy view of a northern flightpath by 2 cops who are pro-OCT makes for a good case.

The idiots are those who succumb to what what they wish to believe and
continue to ignore evidence to the contrary.
MM

You mean evidence to the contrary like the fact that those two cops said that the plane hit the Pentagon?

Good catch, MM!!

 

[Miragememories]

fixed that for ya, buddy!

But I see, No Planers at the Pentagon look down on the No Planers at the WTC.

Kind of a hierarchy, huh, kinda like how the pond scum floating on top of the water looks down at the pond scum on the bottom of the water.

Isn't it great how ******** in JREF are allowed to re-write my words without sanction.

Edited by LashL: 

To properly mask profanity. See Rule 10 and the explanatory note re: the auto-censor.

Try creating a real argument if you are capable.

As I said, with respect to the Pentagon, the northern flightpath witnesses
create a solid case against the official flightpath.

MM

 

[DGM]

Well to be fair, if they both have questions, a two way discussion, uninterupted, unimpeded, but for all to view, might be the best way to settle, or at least explore the issue.

TAM

T.A.M. I'm all for a productive debate. Just once I'd like to see one of them actually back-up what they claim is truth. After listening to BS, MM, Chris7, RedI and all the rest I'm beginning to hold little hope. I even thought for a moment Mr Derek might be able to show some sort of engineering chops, we all know how that's going.

Bottom line is, it's time for them to **** or get off the pot. I don't care if the argument is coming from a street bum or a garbage collector. If the argument is right it will stand on it's own merits for all to see. I wish they would just state their argument and stop the stupid redirecting questions.

 

[Miragememories]

You mean evidence to the contrary like the fact that those two cops said that the plane hit the Pentagon?

Good catch, MM!!

On a flightpath which makes the fallen lightpoles "planted evidence."

Work on that explanation please.

Please don't hurt yourself pondering the problem.

MM

 

[BigAl]

Isn't it great how ******** in JREF are allowed to re-write my words without sanction.

Try creating a real argument if you are capable.

As I said, with respect to the Pentagon, the northern flightpath witnesses
create a solid case against the official flightpath.
MM

Does that flightpath end inside the Pentagon?

YES/NO

 

[The Big Dog]

Isn't it great how ******** in JREF are allowed to re-write my words without sanction.

Try creating a real argument if you are capable.

As I said, with respect to the Pentagon, the northern flightpath witnesses
create a solid case against the official flightpath.

MM

Cool story, bro! But seeing as how we were talking about your pals' theory that No Plane hit the Pentagon, I thought maybe you'd want to talk about how all your pals' witnesses said the plane hit, ya know, THE FREAKING PENTAGON.

 

[Miragememories]

Bottom line is, it's time for them to **** or get off the pot. I don't care if the argument is coming from a street bum or a garbage collector. If the argument is right it will stand on it's own merits for all to see. I wish they would just state their argument and stop the stupid redirecting questions.

Pot calling the kettle black.

No surprise.

MM

 

[DGM]

Pot calling the kettle black.

No surprise.

MM

Like what? How much physical evidence do I have to ignore or people do I claim are "in on it"?

 

[Miragememories]

Does that flightpath end inside the Pentagon?

YES/NO

Not a courtroom Al.

Does that flightpath knock down the lightpoles?

NO.

Explain that and we can talk.

Until then, you are in denial.

MM