Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Pentagon _ Penny Elgas Plane Debris

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 14 2009, 11:39 AM

Can anybody 100% identify the piece of aircraft handed in to the Smithsonian Museum?


Detractors claim it was a wing tip, to back up the lightpole saga.
Yet in a recorded interview claims it is part of the tail.

http://www.pumpshitout.com/audio/pe_060509.mp3

QUOTE
HILL: ¨And you said you saw it... you saw it hit one of the light poles?¨

ELGAS: ¨ No, I didn't see it hit. I heard on the news that it hit a light pole. But that's how I ended up with a piece of the plane, is that it clipped the pole. The tail -- that was actually the tail that a turned into the Smithsonian. A piece of the tail.¨



Sorry I´m totally green on deciphering airplane specs though I did notice that the tail of the Boeing was a composite of ´poxies and graphite´. Are the wings ,particularly the tips, made up of the same material?
Can anybody tell by the shape and rivet holes whether it is from the wings or tail?

Is it even the correct colour? Unless the other side is blue.

I believe it could be a vital piece of physical evidence in that it could help pinpoint where the plane entered Route 27 and the fact that if it IS a tail fragment, how was it supposed to have hit the lightpoles?
I believe Penny Elgas described it as ´the tail´ because she was told so at the Smithsonian Museum yet on their site they describe it as a ´fragment´ of Flight 77.

Any info appreciated guys.
Cheers

Posted by: tezzajw Nov 14 2009, 11:06 PM

Good thread. Good questions.

Hopefully someone has the answers.

There's so much mystery surrounding the Pentagon. Witnesses such as Elgas, Aziz El Hallan, McGraw, Lloyde, all providing some interesting tales...

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Nov 15 2009, 07:59 AM



www.sott.net/signs/Pentagon_Parody.htm



Supposedly this is a pic of the real Flight 77. Since the wings are silver, I would say the piece in your pic is not a piece of the wing. Based on color, it could be a piece of the tail but how did a piece of the tail end up near a light pole (if it did)?

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 15 2009, 09:51 AM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Nov 15 2009, 12:59 PM) *


www.sott.net/signs/Pentagon_Parody.htm



Supposedly this is a pic of the real Flight 77. Since the wings are silver, I would say the piece in your pic is not a piece of the wing. Based on color, it could be a piece of the tail but how did a piece of the tail end up near a light pole (if it did)?


Cheers DYEW,
The Penny Elgas story is weird mate and raises more questions about the official path than at first glance.
We know from http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-thewhiteplane.html that there were reportings of a white plane but then detractors could not admit this as per the alleged photo of Flight 77.

We know from her testimony as regards the http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=873 that she maintains that the plane is always to her left from the Citgo to Route 27.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=28

QUOTE
¨As usual, traffic was very heavy and after I exited I-95, I found myself stuck in late morning rush hour traffic -- almost in front of the Pentagon.

Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane COMING STRAIGHT AT US from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, TO THE SIDE OF (AND NOT MUCH ABOVE) THE CITGO GAS STATION that I never knew was there.

I SAW THE PLANE COMING IN SLOW MOTION TOWARD MY CAR AND THEN IT BANKED IN THE SLIGHTEST TURN IN FRONT OF ME, TOWARD THE HELIPORT. IN THE NANO-SECOND THAT THE PLANE WAS DIRECTLY OVER THE CARS IN FRONT OF MY CAR, THE PLANE SEEMED TO BE NOT MORE THAN 80 FEET OFF THE GROUND AND ABOUT 4-5 CAR LENGTHS IN FRONT OF ME. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground.-- I could see the windows and the color stripes.¨


If she was positioned where the official story would have her in accordance with her testimony it raises serious problems



1) She did http://www.pumpshitout.com/audio/pe_060509.mp3

2) She did not mention a cab with a bigass pole in the windshield of his car which would have been to her left.

3) As she describes the approach as coming from NOC, ´ over the grass headed over the road but still to my left. And then the next thing it's like right in front of me above the cars´ and finally ´THEN IT BANKED IN THE SLIGHTEST TURN IN FRONT OF ME, TOWARD THE HELIPORT. IN THE NANO-SECOND THAT THE PLANE WAS DIRECTLY OVER THE CARS IN FRONT OF MY CAR, THE PLANE SEEMED TO BE NOT MORE THAN 80 FEET OFF THE GROUND AND ABOUT 4-5 CAR LENGTHS IN FRONT OF ME.´

How can this be true if the plane was allegedly travelling at 540mph? Detractors claim that it took 3.7 seconds to reach lightpole 1 from the Navy Annex, followed by 1.3 seconds to ´impact´ from lightpole 1.
What the hell sort of bank and g-force are required to pull this manouevre?
Remember there were obstacles to be navigated too.
Can anybody here actually work this out in formula? (hint hint tongue.gif )



What is a recurring theme from some witnesses, including some that detractors rhyme off to support the official story, that a signpost on Route 27 was struck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iNZNmQPUgs describes a ´lift´the plane did to get over a specific sign but NOT the sign beside lightpole 1.

http://www.thepentacon.com/SeanBogerATC.htm describes the plane actually hitting a signpost. Given his NOC description it must be this same sign.

Albert Hemphill
Navy Annex facing the Pentagon

QUOTE
He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something.


Hemphill in the entire interview actually says that he only had the plane in his sights for 3 seconds though needs further examination.

Narayanan, Vin
QUOTE
The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon


This is one of the strongest vocal supporters of the official path yet his testimony is rife with contradictions.

In another interview he describes himself as being directly in front of the Pentagon and that ´the fireball came straight toward me´.
If he is to be believed at all that puts lightpole 1 and the other roadsign at @ 200m behind him.

Given her testimony and the now undeniable NOC testimony (sorry for being long winded about this) Penny Elgas´ position is actually here:



This is all personal opinion based on witness testimony and the fact that this airplane piece appears different in character from the rest of the alleged ´debris´ we have been shown at the Pentagon.
The main ´debris field´ was allegedly to the north of the Pentagon lawn. Aluminium sheeting and burnt twisted parts. The Penny Elgas piece just doesn´t look like it should have been there. It has obviously been ripped off.
I believe this piece really needs looking into. It MAY be a part of the actual plane involved in this op whatever it was.

Posted by: SPreston Nov 15 2009, 10:52 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Nov 14 2009, 10:39 AM) *
Can anybody 100% identify the piece of aircraft handed in to the Smithsonian Museum?


Detractors claim it was a wing tip, to back up the lightpole saga.
Yet in a recorded interview claims it is part of the tail.


Anybody could have dropped that piece of plastic into her back seat through the open sunroof at any time. The sunroof is usually above the front seats. How would the part fall through the sunroof and end up in the back seat without her hearing it bounce off the seats or her head? Did the part wait to fall until she got out of her car, or is that when some federal agent tossed it into her back seat?

QUOTE
Arriving home, Elgas found this plane fragment in the back seat of her car (she theorizes that it dropped through the open sunroof).

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=28




The material seems very similar to the piece Aziz el Hallan claimed to find at the Pentagon.

QUOTE
This is a video of "Aziz El Hallan". He claims he was on his way to work with his girlfriend when he drove past the Pentagon on 9/11. He claims the plane passed over his car. He claims that the plane got sucked into the building leaving nothing on the outside. He claims it was an American Airlines 757. He claims a piece of plane landed by his car.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8818&st=0&start=0





Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 15 2009, 11:11 PM

QUOTE (SPreston @ Nov 15 2009, 03:52 PM) *
Anybody could have dropped that piece of plastic into her back seat through the open sunroof at any time. The sunroof is usually above the front seats. How would the part fall through the sunroof and end up in the back seat without her hearing it bounce off the seats or her head? Did the part wait to fall until she got out of her car, or is that when some federal agent tossed it into her back seat?



Hey SPreston smile.gif

Oh yeah she admitted on tape http://www.pumpshitout.com/audio/pe_060509.mp3 that

QUOTE
SHE HAD PICKED UP THE PIECE THAT IS AT THE SMITHSONIAN FROM THE GROUND, IT DIDN'T FALL INTO HER CAR FROM THE SUNROOF AS THEY DESCRIBE.


QUOTE
"there was a lamp post the tail of the plane hit"


BUT, later in the interview

QUOTE
HILL: ¨And you said you saw it... you saw it hit one of the light poles?¨

ELGAS: ¨ No, I didn't see it hit. I heard on the news that it hit a light pole. But that's how I ended up with a piece of the plane, is that it clipped the pole. The tail -- that was actually the tail that a turned into the Smithsonian. A piece of the tail.¨


States it as fact even though she didn´t see it.

Look at the original quote you linked to about how it was meant to have got there

QUOTE
¨I went to my car and faced that piece of the plane that was in the back seat. It appeared to be a piece of the tail. There was no metal on it and it was very lightweight -- all plastic and fiberglass. It was 22" long and 15" wide. I have no idea how it got into my car because I do not remember seeing any rubble flying around while I was at the crash site. I assume that it dropped in through the sunroof or flipped in through a window.¨


But in the interview

QUOTE
HILL: ¨And that kinda... the... what I was reading it fell into your car?¨

ELGAS: ¨Well, that's what THEY said, but that's not what happened.¨

HILL: ¨You just picked it up, or?¨

ELGAS: ¨ I Picked it up¨.


Media huh? Lies, lies, lies.

Her description of the ´impact´ is incredible in detail and dramatic effect even though the plane was alleged to have been going at 540mph.
1.3 seconds from lightpole 1 to the facade.
Remember it was supposed to have penetrated the full 94 metres in 8/10ths of a second. A blur. If that.

Aanyway..

What was it with everybody hoofing the ´debris´ that day? I see a massive explosion and the surreal sight played out in this op and the LAST thing I´m gonna do is go souvenir hunting!
Which plane part is Aziz el Hallan holding anyway?

I´m confused looking at the alleged photo of Flight 77 (has this been verified yet?) and the white ´debris´ from this supposedly silver plane.
I KNOW the debris had to have been planted but if can be proved to be a piece of the tail of the plane or ANY other part other than the wing (tips) it could blow the lightpole saga wide open.
Given her positioning on the road and the various witnesses who claimed a sign was hit at an area that I believe the plane entered the road in front of the Pentagon this may be an actual part of the plane involved in the op. The one that could not have hit the Pentagon.

Reaching I know but it is worth looking into.
It is rivetted on one side only and is curved. Poxy resin composite. White.

I´m gonna stop looking at it now cos it´s doing my head in lol.

Help appreciated.
Cheers.

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 16 2009, 08:48 AM

I checked out the site that DYEW linked to for that alleged photo of Flight 77.
Had a much needed laugh (classic - you couldn´t make this stuff up):

QUOTE
Above is an image of the actual Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200, that hit the Pentagon. This picuture was taken BEFORE it hit the Pentagon. As you all can see, the plane is real. This plane was painted in the AA colors. It also has two 757-200 engines under each wing. An aircraft engine was found in the wreckage at the Pentagon. COINCIDENCE? This is the plane that flew from Dulles International airport and crashed into the Pentagon, therefore, it follows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.


QUOTE
Just so we know where we are going, above is a nice picture of a 757-200 with the stats of the aircraft included. These stats are the same as those of Flight 77, which was also a 757-200, and which hit the Pentagon. Therefore it is logical to conclude that Flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon.


QUOTE
And finally. Notice the round thing in this photo. I have placed a yellow arrow above it in case you can't see it. Flight 77 was made up of many round things, incuding the tyres.


QUOTE
For those who need a little extra something to "seal the deal" as it were, and to forever put to rest the kooky conspiracy theories that have plagued our great nation since 9/11: look at the man in the above photo. He is an American rescue worker - a hero and patriot. Notice that his head is bowed as he walks away. Clearly, he is very sad. But why is he very sad?

He is very sad because Flight 77 had just hit the Pentagon.

Aren't you sad that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?


The best for last...(I can´t tell now if this was a serious attempt, the guy is nuts or...)

QUOTE
Conspiracies simply do not exist - except for the small ones, they exist, but the big, scary ones do not, and never have. Everyone knows that.


truce.gif

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Nov 16 2009, 09:29 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Nov 16 2009, 07:48 AM) *
I checked out the site that DYEW linked to for that alleged photo of Flight 77.
Had a much needed laugh (classic - you couldn´t make this stuff up):









The best for last...(I can´t tell now if this was a serious attempt, the guy is nuts or...)



truce.gif

Despite the source, I assume that the pic is of the correct make and model and I was only using it to show the color scheme that AA used.

Just for the record, here's another one with a close up from under the right wing.


Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 16 2009, 08:16 PM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Nov 16 2009, 02:29 PM) *
Despite the source, I assume that the pic is of the correct make and model and I was only using it to show the color scheme that AA used.

Just for the record, here's another one with a close up from under the right wing.



Excellent. Cheers mate.
Ah hey I wasn´t dissing what you sent. Just what the guy was saying at the site smile.gif
Appreciated DYEW.

Posted by: tinynate Nov 23 2010, 07:25 PM

as far as penny elgas, I edited this and posted her ridiculous lies on youtube ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOtC_y-FRJQ


look for my other vids taking apart Jeff Hill's lies with his preposterous shill interviews

Posted by: 23investigator Nov 29 2010, 05:16 AM

Sorry, not certain who a fast reply goes to.
Perhaps the answer has already been given
Although in the brief glance I made of previous replys, somebody said, (I think the lady who found the object) some approximate dimensions.
Has any body accurately measured it?
If not can anybody accurately measure it?
Can a small sample of the material be achieved?

Posted by: onesliceshort Dec 9 2013, 11:46 AM

Going back to the original question of this thread. Where did the Penny Elgas debris come from?



I came across a piece on how the exterior of an American Airlines aircraft is maintained and cleaned:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_05/textonly/fo01txt.html

The most relevant section is this:

QUOTE
All exterior airplane paint can be classified either as decorative, which includes an operator's markings, or as protective, which is light gray in color. Protective paint is used in certain areas to prevent corrosion, and it is used on all composites to prevent erosion and moisture ingress. These composite areas include wing fairings, control surfaces, radomes, tail cones, engine nacelles, and large portions of the empennage. For this reason, even polished airplanes use a considerable amount of protective paint.


I'll quote the rest in case this is 404ed

QUOTE
Polished and painted airplanes both need to be washed regularly to preserve their exterior surfaces. However, for the sake of appearance and image, it is not uncommon for polished airplanes to be washed twice as often as fully painted airplanes. Regular washing protects against corrosion by removing contaminants. It also gives maintenance personnel the opportunity to assess the surface condition of an airplane, which permits operators to predict the date and extent of future maintenance required for corrosion and erosion. A mild alkaline detergent and pure warm water should be used. It is particularly important to wash new airplanes, because the protective oxide film that naturally forms and grows on aluminum with age is relatively thin and provides little protection. Both painted and polished surfaces can be adequately protected from corrosion. Fuselage skins are made from Alclad aluminum that consists of a high-strength core alloy bonded to a thin layer of pure aluminum or aluminum alloy. Wing skins are made of bare aluminum and are protected by an impact-resistant paint system. Polished surfaces are protected from corrosion by regular buffing after washing. Painting protects against oxidation, salts, and jet fuel spills. However, unrepaired chips and cracks in paint collect dirt and moisture and so may become corrosion sites. Painted surfaces are also susceptible to filiform corrosion, or worm corrosion, which begins between metallic surfaces and paint and erodes both. It creates hydrogen and lifts up the paint layer as it travels across the surface.



The protective paint on an otherwise polished aluminium exterior is "light grey" (from their manual). The only white paint is the decorative stripe.

"All composites" are painted with a light grey protective paint.


Here are a selection of images of "N644AA"

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/9/0/0982095.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/5/4/2080458.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/1/7/0290718.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/5/1/0188155.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/5/1/0188154.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/6/4/1/0188146.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/3/1/0188135.jpg


Can anybody see where this alleged debris, held by the Smithsonian Museum (and which the curator allegedly admitted in an email exchange, that they have no proof of its origin) came from?

Posted by: onesliceshort Dec 11 2013, 10:08 AM

QUOTE
Can anybody see where this alleged debris, held by the Smithsonian Museum (and which the curator allegedly admitted in an email exchange, that they have no proof of its origin) came from?


Bump.

It's not a rhetorical question lads. I think this is an extremely important angle of investigation.

Posted by: NP1Mike Dec 11 2013, 05:15 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 11 2013, 09:08 AM) *
Bump.

It's not a rhetorical question lads. I think this is an extremely important angle of investigation.



Oneslice I think you ask a very good question.

I think the best people to pose it to however are not P4T members but Boeing company tech workers.

If you look at the piece there are four distinct layers, plain as day.
There are also two holes on the upper left side.

That info should give a Boeing tech worker a good head start on where to look to match it up.
_If they want to cooperate.

Posted by: onesliceshort Dec 12 2013, 11:25 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Dec 11 2013, 10:15 PM) *
Oneslice I think you ask a very good question.

I think the best people to pose it to however are not P4T members but Boeing company tech workers.

If you look at the piece there are four distinct layers, plain as day.
There are also two holes on the upper left side.

That info should give a Boeing tech worker a good head start on where to look to match it up.
_If they want to cooperate.


Thanks for the feedback Mike.

Here's another angle of the piece for perspective:


Posted by: onesliceshort Dec 12 2013, 12:01 PM

IIRC, these are the polymer composite sections of a 757(?)



We can narrow it down to those sections with multiple layers (at least three layers anyway).

The wing to body fairings are multiple layered, but they are light grey.
The nosecone is white but it only has one layer (graphite)

According to the manual linked to above "all composites" are painted with light grey protective paint.

I actually used to work with kevlar, and I think that I recognize it at the bottom left hand corner of the image (yellow).


Here are some additional images of a Boeing 767-316F flap fairing damaged by a bird strike (you can see the kevlar):

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/184925/

QUOTE
Graphic pictures of a bird strike to a composite (Kevlar/aramid + nomex core) flap fairing. Damage found during walk-around.


http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c325/miamiair/8268A.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c325/miamiair/8268E.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c325/miamiair/8268C.jpg


Repaired (note the similarity of white sheen to the Elgas piece):

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c325/miamiair/8268N.jpg


That piece didn't come from "N644AA" according to what I've seen so far.

But I would love a Boeing tech person to confirm it.


Posted by: NP1Mike Dec 12 2013, 03:29 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 12 2013, 11:01 AM) *
IIRC, these are the polymer composite sections of a 757(?)



We can narrow it down to those sections with multiple layers (at least three layers anyway).

The wing to body fairings are multiple layered, but they are light grey.
The nosecone is white but it only has one layer (graphite)

...That piece didn't come from "N644AA" according to what I've seen so far.

But I would love a Boeing tech person to confirm it.


If I was contacting a Boeing tech, I wouldn't lead him/her on a wild goose chase.
The overwhelming consensus is that a 757/767 did not hit the Pentagon.
I would find the most likely drone craft(s) that would have hit it and ask if the piece matches anything on them.
A much smaller aircraft; therefore a much smaller part to search for.

However it may prove helpful if they could positively state that the piece did not come from a 757.
But if you think about it, what working employee of Boeing would stake his/her job/life by doing so?


Posted by: onesliceshort Dec 14 2013, 04:09 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Dec 12 2013, 08:29 PM) *
If I was contacting a Boeing tech, I wouldn't lead him/her on a wild goose chase.
The overwhelming consensus is that a 757/767 did not hit the Pentagon.
I would find the most likely drone craft(s) that would have hit it and ask if the piece matches anything on them.
A much smaller aircraft; therefore a much smaller part to search for.

However it may prove helpful if they could positively state that the piece did not come from a 757.
But if you think about it, what working employee of Boeing would stake his/her job/life by doing so?


All that's needed is confirmation that this piece didn't come from "N644AA".

The aircraft seen entering the Pentagon basin was on the wrong trajectory to cause the directional damage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

Posted by: NP1Mike Dec 14 2013, 05:41 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 14 2013, 03:09 PM) *
All that's needed is confirmation that this piece didn't come from "N644AA".

The aircraft seen entering the Pentagon basin was on the wrong trajectory to cause the directional damage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o



I'm with you 100% on this.

Posted by: NP1Mike Dec 14 2013, 09:24 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 14 2013, 03:09 PM) *
All that's needed is confirmation that this piece didn't come from "N644AA".

The aircraft seen entering the Pentagon basin was on the wrong trajectory to cause the directional damage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o



I've watched CIT's video two or three times now.
They did a great job with it.

There is just one thing that Ranke fails/refuses to see.

Yes the jet approached from the 'wrong' side. Yes it had to have flown over the Pentagon.
Yes the light poles were planted.
Yes there were planted explosives.

But he doesn't entertain that another aircraft (drone) flew in on the official flight path and entered the building.
This would account for the testimony of the other witnesses who saw a plane fly into the Pentagon
and also for the one second video released by government officials.


Posted by: onesliceshort Dec 15 2013, 10:14 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Dec 15 2013, 02:24 AM) *
I've watched CIT's video two or three times now.
They did a great job with it.

There is just one thing that Ranke fails/refuses to see.

Yes the jet approached from the 'wrong' side. Yes it had to have flown over the Pentagon.
Yes the light poles were planted.
Yes there were planted explosives.

But he doesn't entertain that another aircraft (drone) flew in on the official flight path and entered the building.
This would account for the testimony of the other witnesses who saw a plane fly into the Pentagon
and also for the one second video released by government officials.


There are no witnesses to any type of aircraft on the directional damage path. There are no witnesses to two aircraft.

Why complicate matters? Why reduce the NOC testimony to a sideshow? Screw that.
The OCT on the alleged impact is set in stone. Why give them wriggle room by adding theories that can never be proven?

It's no different to adding theories on to the origin of the Elgas debris Mike. Let them explain it.

Posted by: amazed! Dec 15 2013, 10:46 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Dec 14 2013, 09:24 PM) *
I've watched CIT's video two or three times now.
They did a great job with it.

There is just one thing that Ranke fails/refuses to see.

Yes the jet approached from the 'wrong' side. Yes it had to have flown over the Pentagon.
Yes the light poles were planted.
Yes there were planted explosives.

But he doesn't entertain that another aircraft (drone) flew in on the official flight path and entered the building.
This would account for the testimony of the other witnesses who saw a plane fly into the Pentagon
and also for the one second video released by government officials.


Good point. It would also account for what debris, engine and wheels, that was actually inside the building.

Not so much, but could possibly explain the light pole damage.

Posted by: onesliceshort Dec 15 2013, 11:12 AM

It's like talking to a fucking brick wall.

"Yeah, let's dump all of the evidence we have in our hands and go for a theory we can't ever prove"

Read (just how convoluted and messy things get) from here on:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22499&view=findpost&p=10810155

It includes the so called "impact damage".

Posted by: NP1Mike Dec 15 2013, 06:40 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 15 2013, 09:14 AM) *
There are no witnesses to any type of aircraft on the directional damage path.



It was my understanding that several drivers stuck in slow-moving traffic heading north, saw a plane fly over them towards the Pentagon.

QUOTE
Why complicate matters? Why reduce the NOC testimony to a sideshow? Screw that.
The OCT on the alleged impact is set in stone. Why give them wriggle room by adding theories that can never be proven?


The NOC is rock solid in my estimation. Let's leave it at that.
There was an entrance hole to the Pentagon.
The NOC can't explain it.
Something has to.
What is your explanation for it, and what is your proof?

Posted by: NP1Mike Dec 15 2013, 06:52 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 15 2013, 10:12 AM) *
It's like talking to a fucking brick wall.

"Yeah, let's dump all of the evidence we have in our hands and go for a theory we can't ever prove"

Read (just how convoluted and messy things get) from here on:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22499&view=findpost&p=10810155

It includes the so called "impact damage".


Oneslice, as you can see I am a new member here.
A new member does not automatically mean an uninformed or mentally challenged person.

I have read a number of your threads and can easily see that you are very passionate and steadfast in your beliefs here. There is nothing wrong with that.
I don't know why however? Perhaps you have already explained the reason you feel so strongly about getting every last detail correct. If so please tell me the thread and I'll read it. If you haven't. I'd be very curious to know your reason.

I am an open-minded person.
If someone disagrees with a theory or idea of mine, I have no problem with it at all.

I don't believe that if one or more of my ideas or theories don't follow another member's theories that I should feel embarrassed or be marginalized.




Posted by: onesliceshort Dec 15 2013, 09:23 PM

Mike, that last comment of mine wasn't directed at you. Some people like to wind up here.

If you had followed that last link there is a break down of how we have been conned in to believing that the hole in the Pentagon wall was caused by an aircraft.

Plane + explosion + a sprinkling of unidentified debris + repitition= aircraft impact. How has it got to the point where that hole can in any way be attributed to an aircraft? That an aircraft could physically slot in there and not leave major debris on the lawn or marks on the facade from the extremities?

When you look in detail, you can see evidence of a number of internal explosions.

The "left wing damage" is obviously the result of internal explosives.
The "right wing damage" is the result of internal explosives.

Proof of both of those claims are outlined in detail at that link.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22499&view=findpost&p=10810155

The central section is open to debate but my own personal speculation is that the generator trailer is probably the culprit using a mortar type device (and possible debris dispersion). As I said. Speculation.


As for the witnesses on Route 27, Mike Walter is a proven liar. His two coworkers Naranyan and Sucherman were describing an NOC entry point on to the road. The latter was (twice) claimed by the former to have been "on the other side of the Pentagon" (Route 110).
Steve Riskus is now a confirmed NOC witness.

I know where the discussion will lead when others try to insert a non witnessed "second aircraft" into the scenario. It makes a mockery of the NOC testimony. Who saw what? When? Where?

Nobody saw two aircraft, which would have had to have been virtually simultaneous. And the drivers on Route 27 didn't see two planes fly over the road.

If you want to discuss this I suggest opening a new thread Mike. Better still, respond in the thread I've linked to. I'm pretty underwhelmed by the response to this thread so far.

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 18 2014, 12:34 PM

QUOTE
Going back to the original question of this thread. Where did the Penny Elgas debris come from?



I came across a piece on how the exterior of an American Airlines aircraft is maintained and cleaned:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_05/textonly/fo01txt.html

The most relevant section is this:

QUOTE
All exterior airplane paint can be classified either as decorative, which includes an operator's markings, or as protective, which is light gray in color. Protective paint is used in certain areas to prevent corrosion, and it is used on all composites to prevent erosion and moisture ingress. These composite areas include wing fairings, control surfaces, radomes, tail cones, engine nacelles, and large portions of the empennage. For this reason, even polished airplanes use a considerable amount of protective paint.


I'll quote the rest in case this is 404ed

QUOTE
Polished and painted airplanes both need to be washed regularly to preserve their exterior surfaces. However, for the sake of appearance and image, it is not uncommon for polished airplanes to be washed twice as often as fully painted airplanes. Regular washing protects against corrosion by removing contaminants. It also gives maintenance personnel the opportunity to assess the surface condition of an airplane, which permits operators to predict the date and extent of future maintenance required for corrosion and erosion. A mild alkaline detergent and pure warm water should be used. It is particularly important to wash new airplanes, because the protective oxide film that naturally forms and grows on aluminum with age is relatively thin and provides little protection. Both painted and polished surfaces can be adequately protected from corrosion. Fuselage skins are made from Alclad aluminum that consists of a high-strength core alloy bonded to a thin layer of pure aluminum or aluminum alloy. Wing skins are made of bare aluminum and are protected by an impact-resistant paint system. Polished surfaces are protected from corrosion by regular buffing after washing. Painting protects against oxidation, salts, and jet fuel spills. However, unrepaired chips and cracks in paint collect dirt and moisture and so may become corrosion sites. Painted surfaces are also susceptible to filiform corrosion, or worm corrosion, which begins between metallic surfaces and paint and erodes both. It creates hydrogen and lifts up the paint layer as it travels across the surface.



The protective paint on an otherwise polished aluminium exterior is "light grey" (from their manual). The only white paint is the decorative stripe.

"All composites" are painted with a light grey protective paint.


Here are a selection of images of "N644AA"

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/9/0/0982095.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/5/4/2080458.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/1/7/0290718.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/5/1/0188155.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/5/1/0188154.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/6/4/1/0188146.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/3/1/0188135.jpg


Can anybody see where this alleged debris, held by the Smithsonian Museum (and which the curator allegedly admitted in an email exchange, that they have no proof of its origin) came from?



These are the polymer composite sections of a 757



We can narrow it down to those sections with multiple layers (at least three layers anyway).

The wing to body fairings are multiple layered, but they are light grey.


According to the manual linked to above "all composites" are painted with light grey protective paint.


Here are some additional images of a Boeing 767-316F flap fairing damaged by a bird strike (you can see the kevlar):

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/184925/

QUOTE
Graphic pictures of a bird strike to a composite (Kevlar/aramid + nomex core) flap fairing. Damage found during walk-around.


http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c325/miamiair/8268A.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c325/miamiair/8268E.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c325/miamiair/8268C.jpg


Repaired (note the similarity of white sheen to the Elgas piece):

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c325/miamiair/8268N.jpg


That piece didn't come from "N644AA" according to what I've seen so far.


Bumping this again. whistle.gif

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 18 2014, 05:55 PM

I can see where you are trying to go with this OSS; it is a noble effort.

Given the outer white paint, this pretty much leaves only a few possible sections of a 757: the tailpiece, the stripe or the nose cone.

Unless documents detailing the construction of a Boeing 757 are available
to the public, which I highly doubt, it seems only a Boeing technical rep would be able to provide the info you are looking for.

If you do decide to approach one, I would be very careful about how I word my questions as to what you are looking for.

In addition, if you were providing them any photos of the section, I would definitely crop the Elgas photo, leaving just the middle part, showing the layers.
This way they wouldn't immediately link the photo to what's available on the web.

Again, it seems the only people who could provide proof-positive info on whether the piece came from a 757 are Boeing reps, and if they are approached it would have to dealt with the utmost caution and subtlety.

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 18 2014, 10:06 PM

QUOTE
Given the outer white paint, this pretty much leaves only a few possible sections of a 757: the tailpiece, the stripe or the nose cone.


Hi Mike.

The nosecone is actually grey as it is a composite. As are both the vertical and horizontal stabilizers:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/5/4/2080458.jpg

The only section coloured white is the white stripe. And this section is aluminium.

As for documentation, all of the claims made are sourced from Boeing themselves:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_05/textonly/fo01txt.html

It would be great to hear from a Boeing employee to actually hammer this home but as soon as the Pentagon, or 9/11, are brought up, they will close up shop. I may ask at an airliner forum but as you've said before, it would have to be delicately put. And the inevitable "why do you ask" will be the stumbling block.

Thanks for the input mate thumbsup.gif

Any help on the issue (or how/who to approach) from members here would be greatly appreciated. I think this is highly significant.

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 18 2014, 10:54 PM

Here's a Boeing (767) before the composites are added:


Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 20 2014, 12:28 PM

Here's another image of this piece without the box:



In Penny Elgas' testimony, she claims to have been told that it was a piece of the "tail" (which is impossible). She also says

QUOTE
Then I went to my car and faced that piece of the plane that was in the back seat. It appeared to be a piece of the tail. There was no metal on it and it was very lightweight -- all plastic and fiberglass. It was 22" long and 15" wide. I have no idea how it got into my car because I do not remember seeing any rubble flying around while I was at the crash site.....The plane piece consisted of a layer of white paint, and layers of yellow and gray fiberglass as well as a thin brown corrugated material.


Wtf?

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 20 2014, 04:48 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 20 2014, 11:28 AM) *
Here's another image of this piece without the box:



I was thinking about your thread the last couple of days OSS.
If Boeing is approached I wouldn't even mention a 757 aircraft, so as not to draw attention to it.

I would simply ask what aircraft could the piece have come from and leave it at that.

If the tech person was an expert in their field they would know immediately what family of aircraft it could have come from and which it couldn't, or hopefully even which specific aircraft it had to have come from.

I noticed there is some additional white paint on the borders of 'American' on the fuselage and 'AA' and the insignia on the tail.
However the Elgas piece has a sharp taper at the bottom. This would eliminate virtually all the locations, save the pilot window area.

Doesn't the nose cone in this photo appear to be white?
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/1/7/0290718.jpg

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 20 2014, 05:08 PM

Hi Mike

QUOTE
Doesn't the nose cone in this photo appear to be white?


Maybe that image was a bad choice by me.

Here are two others:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/3/1/0188135.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/1/7/0290718.jpg

If you look at the engine nacelles, you'll see that they're the same colour. Grey.

And you read my mind about the white section under the cockpit thumbsup.gif

But the factory image of the aircraft shell (albeit a 767), prior to adding the polymer sections, shows this to be aluminium

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/boeing767/images/img2.jpg

I've joined an airline forum to throw it out there. Just have to make up the posts to open up a thread.



Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 20 2014, 05:25 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 20 2014, 04:08 PM) *
Here are two others:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/3/1/0188135.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/1/7/0290718.jpg

If you look at the engine nacelles, you'll see that they're the same colour. Grey.


They're certainly not as white as the photo I mentioned, but they do look a bit whitish still.
I don't know how they compare to Elgas' piece though.

QUOTE
But the factory image of the aircraft shell (albeit a 767), prior to adding the polymer sections, shows this to be aluminium

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/boeing767/images/img2.jpg


Maybe you could fill me in a bit on jet construction 101? smile.gif
I see the aluminum shell clearly in the photo above.
What exactly, besides paint, is put on top of the aluminum layer?
You mentioned polymer sections. Where to they go? Thanks!

QUOTE
I've joined an airline forum to throw it out there. Just have to make up the posts to open up a thread.


Sounds interesting, do keep us posted on any developments.

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 20 2014, 10:48 PM

The nosecone is a slightly lighter grey but it's definitely not white. And it's certainly not the same colour as the Elgas debris

Here's another image



As for the construction of Boeing aircraft, here's a quicktime video of the manufacture of a 767 (keep a look out for the cockpit area)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv5gBocOVSs

And from the manual I linked to earlier:

QUOTE
Polished airplanes forgo the base color, restricting the use of decorative paint to stripes, the operator's name and registry number, and logos.

Maintaining the appearance of a polished airplane requires repolishing up to three times a year with a special compound applied with mechanical buffers, as well as regular washing to clean oxidation buildup from unpainted surfaces.


The white stripe can be the only source. And the white stripe is painted directly on to the aluminium shell.

There is no white composite material. Fact.


Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 20 2014, 11:12 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 20 2014, 09:48 PM) *
The nosecone is a slightly lighter grey but it's definitely not white. And it's certainly not the same colour as the Elgas debris


OK.


QUOTE
And from the manual I linked to earlier:

The white stripe can be the only source. And the white stripe is painted directly on to the aluminium shell.

There is no white composite material. Fact.



I guess that settles it.
It still would be nice to get a Boeing official to confirm this orally or in writing, to satisfy everyone.



Posted by: 23investigator Feb 21 2014, 05:52 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 21 2014, 12:42 PM) *
OK.





I guess that settles it.
It still would be nice to get a Boeing official to confirm this orally or in writing, to satisfy everyone.



Dear 'NP1Mike'

It would also be good: for everyone to exercise their minds: to what other sort of aircraft; that composite component was part of.

Robert S

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 21 2014, 08:07 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Feb 21 2014, 10:52 AM) *
Dear 'NP1Mike'

It would also be good: for everyone to exercise their minds: to what other sort of aircraft; that composite component was part of.

Robert S


That it wasn't from N644AA isn't enough?

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 21 2014, 09:31 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 21 2014, 07:07 AM) *
That it wasn't from N644AA isn't enough?


It's enough for me OSS.

If there was a court of law, with judge and jury and it was necessary to prove that the piece did not come from a Boeing 757 which of the following scenarios do you think the jury would prefer in making their decision?

a) An expert on plane construction of various companies and models determines that the piece could have come from aircraft, x,y,z,c,g,h,m,n, and s (none of them Boeing 757's).

b) A Boeing expert on plane construction of all Boeing planes determines that the piece could not have come from a Boeing 757.


Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 21 2014, 10:24 PM

QUOTE
(b) A Boeing expert on plane construction of all Boeing planes determines that the piece could not have come from a Boeing 757.


Exactly Mike. No ambiguity, theories, 10,000 page reports or bullshit.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 8 2014, 11:26 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 21 2014, 03:48 AM) *
The nosecone is a slightly lighter grey but it's definitely not white. And it's certainly not the same colour as the Elgas debris

Here's another image



As for the construction of Boeing aircraft, here's a quicktime video of the manufacture of a 767 (keep a look out for the cockpit area)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv5gBocOVSs

And from the manual I linked to earlier:

QUOTE
Polished airplanes forgo the base color, restricting the use of decorative paint to stripes, the operator's name and registry number, and logos.

Maintaining the appearance of a polished airplane requires repolishing up to three times a year with a special compound applied with mechanical buffers, as well as regular washing to clean oxidation buildup from unpainted surfaces.



The white stripe can be the only source. And the white stripe is painted directly on to the aluminium shell.

There is no white composite material. Fact.








Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 8 2014, 11:40 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 8 2014, 04:26 PM) *
The white stripe can be the only source. And the white stripe is painted directly on to the aluminium shell.

There is no white composite material. Fact.
























Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 8 2014, 11:52 AM








I've run out of options as to where the Elgas piece could have possibly come from on "N644AA"

Remember that this piece was allegedly from the "tail" according to Elgas and the Smithonian. Or from the extremities of the aircraft. But it isn't. I mean, I'm even scratching the bottom of the barrel by checking the fuselage which would mean that it had been blown back on to Route 27 from the facade.

I have to check the fuselage because it's the only area painted white. The white stripe. But that's all aluminium.

And government loyalists are at a loss every time I bring it up too whistle.gif

Posted by: kawika May 2 2014, 04:37 PM

My apologies if this has been covered already.

Where was her car? How did this piece get thrown out to the road from the impact area? Could it be from a light pole strike-- Or does her position on the road foreclose that possibility?

Posted by: onesliceshort May 2 2014, 06:08 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ May 2 2014, 09:37 PM) *
My apologies if this has been covered already.

Where was her car? How did this piece get thrown out to the road from the impact area? Could it be from a light pole strike-- Or does her position on the road foreclose that possibility?


1) Penny Elgas claimed to find the piece on the road. Her online "testimony" was an invention of the propaganda machine (which she admitted to).

2) No witness placed the aircraft on a trajectory through the lightpoles. In fact, given her testimony (in the http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22690) she was around the lightpole 2 area and placed the aircraft (wingtip) at "four cars" in front of her, "50-80ft"/"the height of my house" above the road.

3) The debris didn't come from N644AA "Flight 77"

How it got there? Or came into her possession? I don't know.

There are no white composite sections on the body, wings, tail, nose or farings of a Boeing 757.

I defy one government loyalist to come here and answer this question.

Posted by: kawika May 2 2014, 06:15 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 2 2014, 05:08 PM) *
1) Penny Elgas claimed to find the piece on the road. Her online "testimony" was an invention of the propaganda machine (which she admitted to).

2) No witness placed the aircraft on a trajectory through the lightpoles. In fact, given her testimony (in the http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22690) she was around the lightpole 2 area and placed the aircraft (wingtip) at "four cars" in front of her, "50-80ft"/"the height of my house" above the road.

3) The debris didn't come from N644AA "Flight 77"

How it got there? Or came into her possession? I don't know.

There are no white composite sections on the body, wings, tail, nose or farings of a Boeing 757.

I defy one government loyalist to come here and answer this question.


Excellent OSS, excellent.

If the wings were 50 feet up they couldn't hit the poles.

If it came from the impact zone, a piece of lightweight composite could not be thrown to the road, against the prevailing wind.

Case closed.

Posted by: Alpha66 Apr 20 2015, 04:32 PM

Nice work, it can be said, that at least in the Pentagon issue the "official conspiracy theory" is proven wrong 99%.....

But what can we do now? rolleyes.gif Not much I guess, other than spread the info.... you US citizens should re - open the 9/11 case asap. Don´t know your law over there, but you should assemble some serious people and bring that to the court / police etc. attention.

Posted by: amazed! May 22 2015, 05:03 PM

QUOTE (Alpha66 @ Apr 20 2015, 04:32 PM) *
Nice work, it can be said, that at least in the Pentagon issue the "official conspiracy theory" is proven wrong 99%.....

But what can we do now? rolleyes.gif Not much I guess, other than spread the info.... you US citizens should re - open the 9/11 case asap. Don´t know your law over there, but you should assemble some serious people and bring that to the court / police etc. attention.


The courts are corrupt. All 3 branches of the government are corrupt, there is no rule of law except in their favor.

I've always wondered what they did with the Boeing that made the low pass there? Recovered to some base, mission accomplished... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Alpha66 May 23 2015, 01:05 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ May 22 2015, 05:03 PM) *
The courts are corrupt. All 3 branches of the government are corrupt, there is no rule of law except in their favor.

I've always wondered what they did with the Boeing that made the low pass there? Recovered to some base, mission accomplished... rolleyes.gif


Well the EU is surely following the US corruption suit sad.gif


Btw: So we have severall witnesses that there were real planes, right ? Would that lay to rest the "no plane" theory ?

I wonder also if this was a Boeing at all, if it was fast and people could see it only some seconds that may have been another plane more mavouvrable and remote controlled.
Because the risk a Boeing at this altitude would be too high so part of their plan would fall apart ....thouhts?

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)