Reply #231: What we have here is a failure to communicate.

[Make7]

Perhaps you can only see "ONE logical explanation" because you are trying to interpret those two words as proof that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

The simple fact is that this is not proof - as you have claimed - because you can show no factual basis for reaching your conclusion. This "smoking gun" is nothing more than your assumption of what was meant by Mr. Flocco's answer in that interview.

I think part of the miscommunication might be caused by your difficulties in comprehending the English language. For example:

killtown wrote:

I'd say he was comparing it to something that had a greater number of engines than the number of engines he believes were on the plane that struck the Pentagon.

Um, hello??? That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you all along!!! Glad you finally see it my way! :applause:

That is a completely inaccurate interpretation of what I wrote. (And possibly also what you have written yourself.)

Let me rephrase that statement to see if it helps:

He was comparing the number of engines on the plane that struck the Pentagon to a plane that had a greater number of engines than the Pentagon plane.

There are many planes that have more engines than a 757. I even listed a few in a previous post.

What you have been saying all along is that Mr. Flocco meant that the plane that hit the Pentagon had only one engines, because he was comparing it to the number of engines on the other hijacked planes that day. For you to conclude that what I had written is exactly what you have been saying all along shows a severe lack of understanding on your part. My statement is very much different from what you have been saying.

While I'm at it, I think I will post one more example (Post#205 and Post#230):

 MercutioATC (1000+ posts)

Tue Jan-24-06 02:54 PM 
Response to Reply #202 

 205. He used the word "engines". That implies more than one engine.

The Global Hawk has one engine.

A 757 has two engines.

A 767 also has two engines.

If he was comparing the plane he saw to the other 9/11 planes why would he say "fewer engines"? There are no "engines" that are "fewer" than two.

 

 killtown (374 posts)

Fri Jan-27-06 04:02 PM 
Response to Reply #205 

 230. Go back and read more carefully buddy.

You are making an :kick: of yourself.

Questioning the 9/11 attacks and more...

 

Did Mr. Flocco not say "fewer engines"?

What was the meaning of your response to MercutioATC? It seems to have completely missed the point of his post.

- Make7