The Truther Challenge

[sam]

To return to this photo you posted...

Is this from somewhere on the official flight path?



I'd be grateful if you could quote the source of the shot and give some clue as to context. Ta.

[KP50]

You're hilarious. I already posted a photo that showed the view from along the flightpath, are you not paying attention?

But you have yet to show a photo that proves the Pentagon is "well hidden, in a built up area".

Do you understand the concept of backing up what you say?

Does "well hidden" mean "plainly visible"?

Does "built up area" mean a tree?

Let's start from the beginning shall we.

The plane hit the lower part of the Pentagon, horizontal so that it didn't hit the ground before entering the Pentagon. Thus we are concerned with the ability of just a large plane, travelling at such a speed to accomplish such a feat. While the area immediately around the Pentagon is of interest, the speed of the plane means we must look further back along the flightpath to look at the height of the land, and possible obstructions.

All clear now?

[sam]

You're hilarious. I already posted a photo that showed the view from along the flightpath, are you not paying attention?

But you have yet to show a photo that proves the Pentagon is "well hidden, in a built up area".

Do you understand the concept of backing up what you say?

Does "well hidden" mean "plainly visible"?

Does "built up area" mean a tree?

Let's start from the beginning shall we.

The plane hit the lower part of the Pentagon, horizontal so that it didn't hit the ground before entering the Pentagon. Thus we are concerned with the ability of just a large plane, travelling at such a speed to accomplish such a feat. While the area immediately around the Pentagon is of interest, the speed of the plane means we must look further back along the flightpath to look at the height of the land, and possible obstructions.

All clear now?

And why couldn't it be - acccording to your analysis - in a descent just prior to the point it hit the Pentagon??
If it were ascending at impact then you would have cause for complaint, because the ground would have got in the way earlier.

For my own part I'd be grateful if you could explain whether the photo you posted (above) is supposedly on the flightpath or not. You seem to be avoiding this question like the plague.

Cheers.

[KP50]

To return to this photo you posted...

Is this from somewhere on the official flight path?



I'd be grateful if you could quote the source of the shot and give some clue as to context. Ta.

It is roughly in the area - it is not provided as proof of anything other than to show that the base of the Pentagon is not an easy target to hit.

[KP50]

And why couldn't it be - acccording to your analysis - in a descent just prior to the point it hit the Pentagon??
If it were ascending at impact then you would have cause for complaint, because the ground would have got in the way earlier.

Yes it would have to be in a descent, what's yr point?

[Alex_V]

I would certainly be interested to see the accounts of these 20 witnesses to pre-impact explosions in the basement, if such information is readily available.

I have looked around the net, and still cannot find accurate quotes from witnesses to pre-plane explosions at the Twin Towers. Does anybody have a link, or direct quotes confirming that these witnesses actually exist?