IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Penny Elgas Plane Debris, Anybody know which part it is?

onesliceshort
post Nov 14 2009, 11:39 AM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tezzajw
post Nov 14 2009, 11:06 PM
Post #2





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 23-March 09
Member No.: 4,213



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...

This post has been edited by tezzajw: Nov 14 2009, 11:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Nov 15 2009, 07:59 AM
Post #3





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096





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)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 15 2009, 09:51 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



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 witness testimony 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 approach that she maintains that the plane is always to her left from the Citgo to Route 27.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/...ecord.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 not see the lightpoles being struck and the plane debris did not ´fall into her car´

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.
Robert Tucios at 04:20 in this video describes a ´lift´the plane did to get over a specific sign but NOT the sign beside lightpole 1.

Sean Boger 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Nov 15 2009, 10:52 AM
Post #5


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



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).

Source




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.

Source






This post has been edited by SPreston: Nov 15 2009, 11:00 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 15 2009, 11:11 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



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 here 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 16 2009, 08:48 AM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Nov 16 2009, 09:29 AM
Post #8





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 16 2009, 08:16 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tinynate
post Nov 23 2010, 07:25 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 12
Joined: 23-October 08
Member No.: 3,947



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Nov 29 2010, 05:16 AM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 9 2013, 11:46 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



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/aeromagaz...ly/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-phot...9/0/0982095.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-phot...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?

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Dec 9 2013, 11:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 11 2013, 10:08 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Dec 11 2013, 05:15 PM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



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.

This post has been edited by NP1Mike: Dec 11 2013, 05:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 12 2013, 11:25 AM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



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:

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 12 2013, 12:01 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



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/t...ad.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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Dec 12 2013, 03:29 PM
Post #17





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



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?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 14 2013, 04:09 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Dec 14 2013, 05:41 PM
Post #19





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Dec 14 2013, 09:24 PM
Post #20





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th October 2019 - 02:50 AM