It would be pretty simple to to use our drone technology to hijack those planes.

It makes me seriously wonder if thats not the reasone the black boxes were never found (first time ever).

They could verry easily show the pilots had no control of the plane.

It also makes me wonder if in fact that was the reasone no jets were scrambled wich is operateing procedure when a plane goes off course and fails to respond, perhapse a intercept pilot would see the passenger pilot gestureing he had no control of the plane.

Of course that is all speculation but it is within the bounds of reasone.


Its completely absurd to think anything at all could penetrate the airspace over washington regardless of circmstances, let alone hit the pentagon. Lets be rational adults about this

But they will simply ignore this and ask about it again later. They also wont explain how if the 2 towers were brought down by a demolition then where were there no demolition charges going off. Those would be heard for miles and caught on every video of the towers collapse.

They also think that they can keep secrets but they couldn't keep that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Not only this but they think GWB was an idiot but orchestrated one of the largest and most complex cover ups ever to be imagined.

In the whole scheme of things, the above detail about a camera is not really important. Artistic licence is what is being used in Bestinshow's description of the "official story."

The other facts about 9-11 are enormous. One needs to weigh the important and relevant ones instead of getting caught up in those kinds of distracting details.

But that's what people do. They waste time and effort debating about whether the lawn was damaged, what kind of camera, etc.

They ignore the elephant in the room.

so the government is too perfect for anything to get past them but still amateur enough to leave behind all these 'inconsistencies' that the average joe with no military, pilot, or other training could figure out?

still not a consistent train of thought,, in my opinon

Jeannie, you miss my point.

The reason why I chose that was to highlight how such a retelling is misleading. People will latch onto such details, and then use them to support their own argument without exploring it further. For instance, "this guy says whatever hit it was moving really fast....too fast for video....and a plane that large couldn't be maneuverable at such a high speed and so low to the ground." Well, what if the plane wasn't moving as fast as this person believes? I have to then prove that a lower speed is plausible given what we know. So I did.

Furthermore, pilots use landmarks to navigate. I believe the highway and/or the light posts were used as landmarks to judge the approach angle because both were elevated above the Pentagon lawn. I have no proof of this, only speculation, but it is a simple matter of trigonometry. A certain angle from a certain height will carry the plane to "x" target before it strikes the ground. To make this more manageable, a lower speed, like during a landing approach, could be used. It doesn't matter if the pilot was no good at landing the plane. That wasn't his objective. So the light posts may have been a reference point to ensure the right angle had been maintained on the approach.

The trickiest part of landing a plane is to keep the nose slightly up while keeping the wings level. At the same time, you have to maintain just the ride speed. One of the big concerns in landing a jet is that any one of these factors could destroy landing gear, if not worse. Since the mission required them to crash the plane into a target, not land it, approach angle and air speed are the critical factors. These could be calculated out well ahead of time, and made a part of the plan.

I also chose that example because I have already covered numerous areas of the Pentagon strike in another thread. I recapped much of what I presented earlier in this thread. The video footage is one of the primary building blocks of the argument that a missile, not a plane, struck the Pentagon. So addressing the camera speed is just one more item presented in my case that it was indeed a plane, and not a missile. And if a lower air speed is plausible, then the scenario I outlined above also becomes more plausible. It's a part of the larger picture, no pun intended.

I didn't miss your point actionlynx.

I don't have any idea what hit the pentagon or how -- or if a plane could have done that without an experienced pilot flying it.

(Perhaps remote control?)

I am simply saying that there are much much larger questions that should be addressed about 9-11 before I would worry about some detail in the retelling of the story from someone's point of view that is obviously meant to be a sarcastic version of events, to make a point.

I have read the official 9-11 report and many other(serious) theories by many different sources myself. I view this one as a description given by a stand-up comedian to make a point.

So the whole description to me, was creative licence or parody.

What is most misleading of all, is the official 9-11 commission report. Its also extremely boring, but most of all a ridiculous re-writing of history.

There are many many witnesses who claim they heard explosions includeing firemen the mainstream media chose to ignore anything that did not fit the party line.

Once the story was set no one deviated from script and many of those firefighter are involved in the 911 truth groups.

Keep in mind no one has anything to gain professionaly or financialy by going against the party in fact one will be blackballed for doing such.

Why else would anyone take this position except for the persuit of truth justice and the american way

My appologies to the OP this is from firefighters for 911 truth.

common sense test: You’re dispatched to a house fire in a 2 story with a basement. Upon arrival, all 3 floors are well involved. After extinguishment, the neighbor across the street tells you he saw flashes on all 3 floors within seconds of each other. It turns out the owner has arson convictions on his record. You smell gasoline. Now, should you test the debris for accelerants? No matter what the owner and his friends tell you, wouldn’t you still test it? It’s a “NO-Brainer”…isn’t it?
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

This. Building 7 (which is referred to here I do believe) is one of the biggest smoking guns in the entire story to me.