27-08-2014, 02:47 PM
I really value all of the work he's done on that site, but I'm not impressed by his article trying to prove that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/911/more/pen...ns_est.htm
It was written in 2005 and updated in 2007, so it is really dated. Barbara Honegger's recent video pretty effectively demolishes the idea that a commercial airliner piloted by a human hit the Pentagon. She points out that the wings would have been sliced when hitting the steel light poles, and the fuel inside the wings would have exploded before the plane even reached the target. And why would Hani Hanjour perform this ridiculously difficult maneuver to hit the west side of the Pentagon, instead of the offices of the Joint Chiefs and Rumsfeld on the other side? Or simply dive down into the roof?
He doesn't seem to consider the possibility that a modfied, remotely-piloted military plane that resembled an airliner may have been used. In fact, he seems to ridicule the whole idea of remote control. He quotes Daniel Hopsicker: ""Instead, what we got was the recent 9/11 Conference in San Francisco, where you could hear all about the Bush's links to the Nazis... find out that the hijacked planes were operatedLook Ma! No hands!by Remote Control."
No, what should be ridiculed is the idea that the facilitators of 9/11 would rely on a bunch of Arab patsies who could barely fly a plane to successfully carry out the attacks. If you've really studied the 19 Arab suspects, I wouldn't rely on any of them to operate a lemonade stand.
https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/911/more/pen...ns_est.htm
It was written in 2005 and updated in 2007, so it is really dated. Barbara Honegger's recent video pretty effectively demolishes the idea that a commercial airliner piloted by a human hit the Pentagon. She points out that the wings would have been sliced when hitting the steel light poles, and the fuel inside the wings would have exploded before the plane even reached the target. And why would Hani Hanjour perform this ridiculously difficult maneuver to hit the west side of the Pentagon, instead of the offices of the Joint Chiefs and Rumsfeld on the other side? Or simply dive down into the roof?
He doesn't seem to consider the possibility that a modfied, remotely-piloted military plane that resembled an airliner may have been used. In fact, he seems to ridicule the whole idea of remote control. He quotes Daniel Hopsicker: ""Instead, what we got was the recent 9/11 Conference in San Francisco, where you could hear all about the Bush's links to the Nazis... find out that the hijacked planes were operatedLook Ma! No hands!by Remote Control."
No, what should be ridiculed is the idea that the facilitators of 9/11 would rely on a bunch of Arab patsies who could barely fly a plane to successfully carry out the attacks. If you've really studied the 19 Arab suspects, I wouldn't rely on any of them to operate a lemonade stand.