Ed Pentagon - TruthMakesPeace

Gassed Occupants (crew, passengers, and duped hijackers) In Remote Controlled Plane theory (GOIRCP) proposes that Agents were in the ground crew, and installed enhanced RC capabilities. Boeing 757s and 767s has basic RC capabilities.
http://www.viewzone.com/911revisited.html
You are posting hearsay, lies, and delusions, and offer no evidence. You have not supported one claim with evidence.

You found someone who manufactures moronic claims, only morons would believe; Jon Carlson, a liar, or an idiot?

You posted this failed junk before, it will always be lies. Why do you insist on repeating your failed claims?
 
Last edited:
Hani Hanjur could have been closer, trying to land at DC Airport, when he and his flight got gassed. Remote Control took over, made the big loop, and hit the Pentagon.
How many takeoffs and landings did Hani perform while practicing in the simulator? And he wanted to land a 757? Even ATP's with several hours of flight time practice takeoffs and landings.

Tanks of cyanide exist. The theory hypothesizes a remote controlled valve to release the gas from the baggage area to spread throughout the plane. It is possible technology. Remember, NASA can remote control robotic surveyors on Mars.

Just a few questions:
You do realize that the physical state of cyanide is that of a liquid, not a gas… right? The boiling point of cyanide is 79 deg. What is the temperature inside the baggage area of a 757 at altitude?
How many tanks of cyanide would be necessary to fill the passenger compartment of a 757?
How would you hide all of these tanks so the baggage handlers wouldn’t notice them?

ETA:
Truthers claim that Hani did not have the experience to make the almost 360 deg. turn to hit the Pentagon. But, you want me to believe that he had the experience to pull up an aircraft doing 480+ knots in order to miss the Pentagon, lose 340 knots of airspeed, extend flaps, lower the gear, trim the aircraft, and finish the pre-landing check list in a little over a mile. Wow!
 
Last edited:
You're views and the swooping/hovering of your ilk are purveyors of disinformation. The everybody is an idiot refrains, the off the wall questions and requests for this and that make your intent obvious.

Just a suggestion Clayton, if you are going to refer to someone as an idiot then you should first understand when to use "you're' as opposed to 'your'.
 
Here's a question for Major Tom. The trusters say the maneuver to hit the Pentagon at over 500 MPH was not really that difficult. Can you develop a
maneuver/speed/target size comparison using a car?
Think "like a needle in a haystack."

I am pretty sure that I could do a sweeping turn at 50 MPH then straighten out and accelerate to 100 MPH(given something other than my Ford Ranger) and hit the broad side of a barn door.

Is that satisfactory?
 
Its called 'green screen' and 'post production'. Concepts that have been around for decades.




Because they part of a force that was at war.


Nor has any suicide bomber in Israel ever shouted his demands prior to killing all aboard a bus or in a night club or restaurant.


Al-qada made it known many many times before Sept.11/01 that they considered themselves to be at war with the USA and western countries, that their cause was to rid the "Holy Land" of western invaders and influence and to that end they would attack, whenever, and wherever they could, targets of the countries they considered themselves at war with.

Thus the African Embassies, thus the USS Cole, the WTC towers and the Pentagon, London and Spanish train stations.

Sorry TMP, your premise is shown/demonstrated to be utterly without merit.

Never stopped 'im before.

I notice that although the above has been pointed out several times now he still contends that the hijackers should have, would have, made demands and only after landing, and could not have done otherwise. In fact he either has me on 'ignore' or is running away from acknowledging that suicide attackers do not make demands as a matter of course.
 
Oopsie yourself. No, the SEC found that BOTH the AA and UA were puts. The buyer made money on both transactions. That's why they were suspicious. Duh. This is off post, but you persist in this lie and disinformation, based on your misreading of the 9/11 report, and it has to be cleared up.
Have you contacted ANY MEMBER OF THE SEC yet? Didn't think so. File an FOIA and find out WHO this trading house was. It was a trading house. Not an individual.

What was the findings of the investigation? Oh that it was part of the STANDARD business policies. Oopsie.


Right you are. I am spending too much time on 911Blogger and not enough time on JREF. I'm doubling my donation this year. Thanks. I listened to them, and did not hear any of them saying they were going to kill themselves. Oops on you.

Most had photos in the background of the 9/11 crashes into the WTC and Pentagon. Oops on you. Did you say they made these videos before, or after they died? :rolleyes:

<facepalm>
You do realize that these martyr videos were BROADCAST on Al Jazeera, and that Al JAzeera added in the backgrounds. Someone with your "excellent" research skills must have found that out... right?

Ahmed al-Ghamdi - 175 - no mention of killing himself
Hamza al-Ghamdi - 175 - shown with 9/11 photos
Ahmad al-Haznawi - 93 - shown with 9/11 photos
Abdulaziz al-Omari 11 - shown with 9/11 photos
Mohand al-Shehi 175 - no mention of killing himself
Wail al-Shehri 11 - shown with 9/11 photos
Waleed al-shehri 11 - shown with 9/11 photos
Ziad Jarrah 93 - no mention of killing himself

So 5 of them mentioned explicitly killing themselves (making themselves martyrs.) But try to handwave it away. 5 said they would die for allah... oopsie. Al Jazeera added IN the backgrounds. I'm sure you have heard of greenscreens, or of video editing. Right?

How did those 9/11 images get in the videos? Al Jazeera put them there stupid.

Hey, have you found any videos ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, in ANY LANGUAGE where a "living" hijacker has been found? I mean countries like IRAN, Venezuela, and even Russia would just **** their pants in joy if they could find one. Pretty please.... find one.


Seriously, thanks for the link. It supports the theory that these hijackers were just that, hijackers. Their intent was to demand the US get out of Arabia, in return for the hostages. If they kill them, and themselves, they don't have much negotiating power left. Right? :rolleyes:

Arguments from ignorance and incredulity noted.
How are your experts working out for you? Oh kevin ryan... confirmed liar. Stubblebine... confirmed bat **** crazy.

wowsers...

How is that technical analysis coming? Have you managed to even READ it yet? Like the Put report from the SEC?
 
Last edited:
Gassed Occupants (crew, passengers, and duped hijackers) In Remote Controlled Plane theory (GOIRCP) proposes that Agents were in the ground crew, and installed enhanced RC capabilities. Boeing 757s and 767s has basic RC capabilities.
http://www.viewzone.com/911revisited.html

Other than the technical analysis that I have ALREADY PROVIDED TO YOU REPEATEDLY.

That shows that the 757 and 767's on 9/11 were NOT fly by wire. They were Manually controlled through hydraulics.... Oopsie.

please provide any citation which contradicts the technical analysis of this bs theory that you claim.

Pretty please.
 
Here's a question for Major Tom. The trusters say the maneuver to hit the Pentagon at over 500 MPH was not really that difficult. Can you develop a
maneuver/speed/target size comparison using a car?
Think "like a needle in a haystack."
More like you can't miss, the targets on 911 were big. Hani had troubles landing on a 40 foot wide runway, and the runway is zero feet high. The pentagon is over 900 feet wide and 70 feet tall. To land on the runway you must be lined up and stable on the runway heading, an exact course to line up, with the correct crosswind controls. To crash into the Pentagon you can line up on any infinite headings and no one cares if you have crosswind controls in or not. If you are not lined up straight for the runway you can run off the runway, the Instructor will not let you continue if you are not lined up, you will not be cleared solo until you can line up. If you line up crooked for the Pentagon, you still hit it. Also, landing you must land on target, not the entire runway but a specific area, the touchdown area and the window to be on glide path is a few feet for professional pilots. Hitting the Pentagon there is no glide slope window, you have 70 plus feet to hit a side and over 900 feet to hit the roof! Remember pilots have a window of a few feet.

Major Tom, does not do math, he has the CD delusion, he is not a pilot, he has no rational conclusions on 911.

You are in the Wallmart Parking lot, in a 1966 Mustang 289, going 62 mph, you do a 330 degree turn and aim at the Wallmart wall, hit the gas peddle. You make a wide turn because you are going fast, you roll out with full throttle going from 62 mph to 109 mph and you hit the wall of Wallmart. If you are using a Geo Metro, change 62 to 42, and impact speed to 68 mph, if you line up far enough away.

Hani's turn was wide, over 5 miles wide, no wonder it took over 4 minutes to lose altitude and finish the turn to hit the Pentagon. Hani was going 488 knots at impact, only over-speed for 20 seconds.

The flying on 911 was entry level, and hitting building is easier than landing. Anyone who can ride a bike could fly better than the terrorists did on 911.
 
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
You're views and the swooping/hovering of your ilk are purveyors of disinformation. The everybody is an idiot refrains, the off the wall questions and requests for this and that make your intent obvious.



Just a suggestion Clayton, if you are going to refer to someone as an idiot then you should first understand when to use "you're' as opposed to 'your'.

At least my error was an oversight as opposed to a lack of comprehension.
 
You're views and the swooping/hovering of your ilk are purveyors of disinformation. The everybody is an idiot refrains, the off the wall questions and requests for this and that make your intent obvious.
By "this and that", do you mean "evidence"? Because I'm fairly certain you need evidence to come to reasonable conclusions. Otherwise, you're just trusting your gut, which is only really useful in love and figuring out where to eat lunch.
 
More like you can't miss, the targets on 911 were big. Hani had troubles landing on a 40 foot wide runway, and the runway is zero feet high. The pentagon is over 900 feet wide and 70 feet tall. To land on the runway you must be lined up and stable on the runway heading, an exact course to line up, with the correct crosswind controls. To crash into the Pentagon you can line up on any infinite headings and no one cares if you have crosswind controls in or not. If you are not lined up straight for the runway you can run off the runway, the Instructor will not let you continue if you are not lined up, you will not be cleared solo until you can line up. If you line up crooked for the Pentagon, you still hit it. Also, landing you must land on target, not the entire runway but a specific area, the touchdown area and the window to be on glide path is a few feet for professional pilots. Hitting the Pentagon there is no glide slope window, you have 70 plus feet to hit a side and over 900 feet to hit the roof! Remember pilots have a window of a few feet.

Major Tom, does not do math, he has the CD delusion, he is not a pilot, he has no rational conclusions on 911.

You are in the Wallmart Parking lot, in a 1966 Mustang 289, going 62 mph, you do a 330 degree turn and aim at the Wallmart wall, hit the gas peddle. You make a wide turn because you are going fast, you roll out with full throttle going from 62 mph to 109 mph and you hit the wall of Wallmart. If you are using a Geo Metro, change 62 to 42, and impact speed to 68 mph, if you line up far enough away.

Hani's turn was wide, over 5 miles wide, no wonder it took over 4 minutes to lose altitude and finish the turn to hit the Pentagon. Hani was going 488 knots at impact, only over-speed for 20 seconds.

The flying on 911 was entry level, and hitting building is easier than landing. Anyone who can ride a bike could fly better than the terrorists did on 911.

That was incredible. The following is a once in a lifetime Peter Pan classic.

The flying on 911 was entry level, and hitting building is easier than landing.
 
That was incredible. The following is a once in a lifetime Peter Pan classic.
911 terrorist flying was bad entry level at best. Looks at the bank angle control.

11BankAnglecompare.jpg

The bank angle should be smooth like the airline pilot. Entry level, actually worse than entry level. All the pilots I have trained with were able to line up and land on their first try in their first plane ride, in their first jet flight, in the first T-38 flight, in their first KC-135 flight.

On my first flight in a prop plane without training (like your first time) I landed the plane on center line, on speed.
On my first flight in a jet trainer I landed the Jet on center line, first time.
37org.jpg
First time, good landing.
On my first flight in the jet in my avatar, I land on center line first time.
In this type jet, the one in the leading, the first time I landed was perfect. (so was the last)
1tankerflight.jpg



Flying on 911 was entry level, hitting a building is easier than landing.

You live in a fantasy world where reality is fantasy, and fantasy is your reality. Some people can't fly as good as terrorists, Balsamo and his failed pilot club claim they are worse than terrorists, can't hit buildings with a plane.

I put my daughters in a simulator, she hit the WTC first try, no flight training. I gave check-rides in simulators for large jets and gave orientation flights to people who had never flown. I have flown with kids who could aim and guide a plane with no training, and that was in a small plane harder to fly than a large jet.

It is math. - For landing you have to be lined up, a single heading. To hit a building you can line up, pick any of infinite headings, and change it as you go.

1WTCinfinitecourses.jpg

Do you understand infinite courses to hit a building, one course to land on?
 
Last edited:
911 terrorist flying was bad entry level at best. Looks at the bank angle control.

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/11BankAnglecompare.jpg[/qimg]
The bank angle should be smooth like the airline pilot. Entry level, actually worse than entry level. All the pilots I have trained with were able to line up and land on their first try in their first plane ride, in their first jet flight, in the first T-38 flight, in their first KC-135 flight.

On my first flight in a prop plane without training (like your first time) I landed the plane on center line, on speed.
On my first flight in a jet trainer I landed the Jet on center line, first time.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/37org.jpg[/qimg] First time, good landing.
On my first flight in the jet in my avatar, I land on center line first time.
In this type jet, the one in the leading, the first time I landed was perfect. (so was the last)
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1tankerflight.jpg[/qimg]


Flying on 911 was entry level, hitting a building is easier than landing.

You live in a fantasy world where reality is fantasy, and fantasy is your reality. Some people can't fly as good as terrorists, Balsamo and his failed pilot club claim they are worse than terrorists, can't hit buildings with a plane.

I put my daughters in a simulator, she hit the WTC first try, no flight training. I gave check-rides in simulators for large jets and gave orientation flights to people who had never flown. I have flown with kids who could aim and guide a plane with no training, and that was in a small plane harder to fly than a large jet.

It is math. - For landing you have to be lined up, a single heading. To hit a building you can line up, pick any of infinite headings, and change it as you go.

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1WTCinfinitecourses.jpg[/qimg]
Do you understand infinite courses to hit a building, one course to land on?

Thanks for the ridiculous egotistical premise.
 

Back
Top Bottom