Why fake the SoC path?

[Bell]

I made a perfectly rational answer way earlier in the thread.

THIS rational answer?

My thoughts on this are as follows.

If, in fact, as is my opinion, that 77 didnt hit the Pentagon, then the damage done to that building was caused by some sort of bomb damage.

As the damage was done by a bomb and not a plane, it would make sense if the perps wanted it to appear as damage from a plane, to leave a trail of plausibity to support their "plane impact" story.

The lightpoles being downed affords just such an opportunity, and the "taxi cab scene" paints a nice picture that intends to tie the whole story together.

To the sheep, it would go something like this...Plane impacts poles on its way toward Pentagon, then hits Pentagon.

The "photo op" of the taxi cab was in fact so powerful, it was even used in the 9/11 piece right before McCain came on stage at the Republican convention.

The problem with this "photo op" and the downed poles, is that it ties the perps into that exact story, and flightpath, with zero wiggle room.

The story is now beginning to come apart at the seams.

First because 13 eyewitnesses place the plane in a position to where it couldnt have hit them(NOC), and secondly, any more that a cursory study on thev cabbie/pole spear scenario reveals it to be EXTREMELY unlikely, and lacking plausibility.
Then April Gallop reports seeing no plane debris from roughly 30 feet inside the impact site, where she was sitting that day.

Applying Occams Razor to both sides of the issue, clearly awards reason and common sense to the NOC path and the staging of the poles

THIS is a rational explaination of why the SoC flightpath was faked? What what?

*facepalm*

This is your explaination of WHY a flightpath would be faked.
This does NOT explain why the SoC flightpath would be faked.
This does NOT explain why NOT the NoC flightpath was faked.

 

[Bobert]

So now all the experts who collected the plane parts, bodies, etc are ALL IN ON IT?
Doesnt it occur to these terrorist hugging POS that THESE EXPERTS might hve mentioned the fact that THEY FOUND EVIDENCE OF BOMBS!
ONLY IN TRUTHER WOO LAND can you believe that NO ONE would be able to tell the differrence between bomb damage versus impact damage.
Seriously Roundhead DONT QUIT YOUR DAY JOB!

 

[Bell]

*bump*

For TLB and Roundhead.
See my post #281 above.

 

[roundhead]

THIS rational answer?



THIS is a rational explaination of why the SoC flightpath was faked? What what?

*facepalm*

This is your explaination of WHY a flightpath would be faked.
This does NOT explain why the SoC flightpath would be faked.
This does NOT explain why NOT the NoC flightpath was faked.

It explains everything nicely.


Photo op, sheeple's, muddying up the attack jets path, sheeple's.....

 

[lapman]

It explains everything nicely.


Photo op, sheeple's, muddying up the attack jets path, sheeple's.....

Then there is that whole generator issue with the airplane engine sized section taken out of the fence that was in front of it.

 

[Bell]

It explains everything nicely.


Photo op, sheeple's, muddying up the attack jets path, sheeple's.....

Well, sir, it doesn't.

All you did was telling HOW the SoC flightpath was faked and why A flightpath was faked.


Detective: "Why did you kill your boss?"
Suspect: "I double tapped him in the head. That was to make sure he stayed down."

 

[roundhead]

Then there is that whole generator issue with the airplane engine sized section taken out of the fence that was in front of it.

Then there is that issue of the aluminum wings passing through a reinforced wall, and no sign of them being seen outside, as though the wall was paper .


A wing hits a dinky little ole light pole and shears off, but can pass through a reinforced wall just fine
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/nov/23/nation/na-plane23
LA Times:

Authorities said the Gulfstream III was 1 1/2 miles from the runway when it hit a light pole on Beltway 8, a toll road that encircles the outskirts of the city. Part of the jet’s wing was sheared off by the impact; the pole was bent in half.




Uh, OK, i want some of what you are smoking, that stuff must be mighty skunky, and be 200 bucks a quarter or more.

 

[Bell]

A wing hits a dinky little ole light pole and shears off, but can pass through a reinforced wall just fine
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/nov/23/nation/na-plane23
LA Times:

Authorities said the Gulfstream III was 1 1/2 miles from the runway when it hit a light pole on Beltway 8, a toll road that encircles the outskirts of the city. Part of the jet’s wing was sheared off by the impact; the pole was bent in half.

Why did you not include this in your quote:

The Gulfstream III jet, descending in heavy fog, clipped a light pole and slammed into a field south of downtown.

Source

Pictures are nice!

 

[lapman]

Then there is that issue of the aluminum wings passing through a reinforced wall, and no sign of them being seen outside, as though the wall was paper .


A wing hits a dinky little ole light pole and shears off, but can pass through a reinforced wall just fine
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/nov/23/nation/na-plane23
LA Times:

Authorities said the Gulfstream III was 1 1/2 miles from the runway when it hit a light pole on Beltway 8, a toll road that encircles the outskirts of the city. Part of the jet’s wing was sheared off by the impact; the pole was bent in half.




Uh, OK, i want some of what you are smoking, that stuff must be mighty skunky, and be 200 bucks a quarter or more.

So you can't address the fact that the generator and fence completely contradicts your fantasy. Thank you for confirming this.

 

[roundhead]

Why did you not include this in your quote:



Source

Pictures are nice!

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/C-20_Gulfstream.gif[/qimg]

Yeah, 68,000 pound plane fully loaded. One dink light pole shears its wing

9/11 flight 77..4 poles and a thick reinforced wall do nothing to either wing, yeah, OK.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

9/11 flight 77..4 poles and a thick reinforced wall do nothing to either wing, yeah, OK.

It works out perfectly when you're arguing a strawman... I don't think anybodies' argued such a thing (bolded text) LINK

 

[beachnut]

zero research by 9/11 truth was presented by roundhead

Yeah, 68,000 pound plane fully loaded. One dink light pole shears its wing

9/11 flight 77..4 poles and a thick reinforced wall do nothing to either wing, yeah, OK.

If you want to keep going, GO FAST. Flight 77 was going fast.

You have no real expertise in this, you need to stop exposing your lack of knowledge on physics, engineering, and structures.

There is an example, if you would look it up, of an aircraft wing cutting a cable and killing all people on a ski cable car in Italy. Look it up and move those goal posts again. Good luck, but a breakaway lamppost can't stop a small car, and it will not stop a big 200,000 pound plane going 500 mph. Redo

A slow car, weaker than an aircraft wing, was not seared at all. Why do you make up lies?

Using your failed logic, cars should be cut in half. But they are not. Failure to use logic is common in 9/11 truth; breakout and be saved.

Provide proof for your failed idea. You can't.

WHY?
9/11 truth fails to research 9/11 and other things. Why are you telling LIES??

The airplane impacted the top of a light pole about 198 feet above the ground. Pieces of the right wing inboard leading edge were found embedded in the joint that attaches the light fixture to the pole. Numerous pieces of the right wing inboard leading edge, upper and lower right wing skin, and the right main landing gear door were found between the light pole and the initial ground impact mark, which was about 790 feet northeast of the light pole.

This means parts of the wing were damaged, but the wing was not sheered off. This make you a purveyor of false information. Thanks for trying to mislead others like 9/11 truth does. Your lack of honesty, or lack of knowledge is noted.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Then there is that issue of the aluminum wings passing through a reinforced wall [...]

...except they didn't.

[...] and no sign of them being seen outside [...]

How identifiable do you think they should have been?

 

[fezzic]

I would point out that nobody has claimed that the wing of the 757 was not damaged (in any way) by the collisions with the light poles.

AA77 was a much bigger aircraft than the Gulfstream, on a suicide run at the Pentagon at near full speed, mere seconds from impact, and it might be argued that even if a light pole inflicted enough damage to affect the airworthiness of the aircraft that it crashed (into the Pentagon) before that damage could manifest itself in any material way.

So a reasonable explanation negates an attempt to equate two different crashes that occurred under different circumstances with two very different aircraft.

 

[roundhead]

I would point out that nobody has claimed that the wing of the 757 was not damaged (in any way) by the collisions with the light poles.

AA77 was a much bigger aircraft than the Gulfstream, on a suicide run at the Pentagon at near full speed, mere seconds from impact, and it might be argued that even if a light pole inflicted enough damage to affect the airworthiness of the aircraft that it crashed (into the Pentagon) before that damage could manifest itself in any material way.

So a reasonable explanation negates an attempt to equate two different crashes that occurred under different circumstances with two very different aircraft.

"77" was a bigger plane, but the Texas plane that crashed wasnt small by any means. Capable of 68,000 pounds fully loaded.

Dont forget it was flown by experts as well, not some guy who couldnt even fly a Cessna a few weeks before.

As far as Beachnut or whoever it was lying earlier about the damage to this plane, the following quote from another article regarding the crash should clear it up. And remember, this was a SINGLE lightpole that took it down.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1285830/posts


"Houston Fire Department District Chief Jack Williams said the twin-engine Gulfstream jet, arriving from Dallas Love Field, apparently clipped a tall light tower at a Beltway 8 toll plaza, shearing off a wing. He said the severed wing rests near the base of the tower.

Williams said firefighters found a trail of debris stretching about a thousand feet from the light tower into a field north of the toll road. "


SHEARED OFF AND RESTING ON THE GROUND...........


Anybody who thinks a well coordinated and planned operation(it must have been right, it completely fooled our nations defenses)would fly a jet through 4 lightpoles and into the most heavily reinforced, and most sparsely populated section of the building is recovering from a botched lobotomy.

 

[DGM]

.

Dont forget it was flown by experts as well, not some guy who couldnt even fly a Cessna a few weeks before.

How do you think you can get to the truth by lying so much? You are showing us you are INCAPABLE of telling the truth. Grow up and stop this childish behavior.

 

[roundhead]

How do you think you can get to the truth by lying so much? You are showing us you are INCAPABLE of telling the truth. Grow up and stop this childish behavior.

Hanjour, the "supposed pilot" of 77, could even rent a Cessna a few weeks before 9/11, because he couldnt pass the guidelines to do so(by the instructors/ renters of the plane).

What part of that isnt 100% true.

Your owned.


Study 9/11 a little and report back in a few months



http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_14.htm

Further suspension in logic exists in the 'official story's' narrative as to who flew Flight 77 so expertly into the Pentagon's west wing. Hani Hanjour is credited with being the airplane's pilot. This is a man who, three weeks before September 11, attempted to rent a Cessna at an airfield in Maryland. Suspicious of his dubious 'pilot's license', officials at the airfield insisted he take a chaperoned test-flight before rental would be approved. He failed his test flight miserably. He could neither control, nor properly land the Cessna. In fact, the instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all." Other source. And yet, the official narrative of 9/11 asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation test pilot.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Hanjour, the "supposed pilot" of 77, could even rent a Cessna a few weeks before 9/11, because he couldnt pass the guidelines to do so(by the instructors/ renters of the plane).

Of course that's only part of the story isn't it roundhead? Others contend that he didn't require all the knowledge of how to pilot an aircraft. The plane was already in the air, and he most certainly would not have needed to know how to land it. His flying was exceptional only in its recklessness. For the purpose of what he was aiming to do it was not necessary to be a "qualified pilot", he only needed to know enough to keep the plane in the air and then to ram into a large target.

Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.

Source


This article also offers feedback from other pilots on the subject who offer similar opinions regarding Hanjour's prerequisites..

 

[Dog Town]

Hanjour, the "supposed pilot" of 77, could even rent a Cessna a few weeks before 9/11, because he couldnt pass the guidelines to do so(by the instructors/ renters of the plane).

What part of that isnt 100% true.

Why he failed would be a good start for you to state!
I doubt you will, everyone here knows.
Start with verbal issues, continue...

 

[DGM]

Hanjour, the "supposed pilot" of 77, could even rent a Cessna a few weeks before 9/11, because he couldnt pass the guidelines to do so(by the instructors/ renters of the plane).

What part of that isnt 100% true.

.

The part where you lie again that the very same instructor was flying with him. You said he COULDN'T FLY A CESSNA.

STOP LYING .It's a habitual thing for you . Seek help.