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 )

11 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Northern Approach ???, a step back from the details

achimspok
post Jun 11 2010, 03:23 AM
Post #1





Group: Troll
Posts: 124
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,144



(Right, I forgot a "n" in the title and don't know how I can change it, so please...)

First, two reasons for posting this:
Firstly, I read the Albert Hemphill telephone call conversation threads and was a little shocked about the harsh words and the way to turn the meanings of the words in any useful way.
Secondly, I read the 757 "Remote Control And Flight Crew Lockout Technology Available" thread - a very interesting thread!

Imo both together makes not very much sense. Therefore it seems to be useful to step back from the details and to have a little more distant look at all these things.

THE PENTAGON STRIKE

1) There are 5 light poles. The damage looks pretty much like a mechanical damage. It looks like hit down with a gigantic baseball bat. No soot, no shrapnels nor any sign of tiny explosions. It is what it is. The former straight poles are bowed diagonally to the street and sheared off. It would be possible to get the exact angle of the force from the square at the bottom of the pole to compare it with the alleged trajectory.


2) We know the lamp head height was 40ft and we can estimate the elevation of the damage. That leads to a path for the "whatsoever". Imho it must have been some plane due to the wingspan. Any missile theory cannot explain that path through the damage or we need a missile as big as a plane or two missiles. So the possibility for that is pretty small because there would be a hundred better possibilities to shoot a plan into pieces or just to shoot a hole into the building.


3) Still there is no serious contradiction regarding the photographs of airplane debris and a Boeing 757. Several websites deal with that topic. I wrote something here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/viewtopi...p?f=8&t=377

4) The witness Albert Hemphill said something about 3 to 5 seconds. Is it evident for a slower speed? The distance between Navy Annex and the impact hole is about 840 meters.
v= 840m/3s = 280m/s = 626mph
v= 840m/5s = 168m/s = 375mph

So it's time to have a second look at the flight path. Let's start with the "right shoulder" flight path.



This is the the view from the top floor of the Navy Annex. The camera position is visible in the above image.



Right shoulder? Yes. Clearing the bridge? Yes. Over the CGS? Yes, it looks like. Nevertheless the plane flew south of it.

That's how it should looks like from a 2m elevated surveillance camera with a 25mm lens. Imagine trees and buildings in the background.
Imo, the plane that is about to hit the right point looks a lot higher. The engines are still above the lawn but...




This post has been edited by paranoia: Jun 11 2010, 05:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
achimspok
post Jun 11 2010, 03:48 AM
Post #2





Group: Troll
Posts: 124
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,144



...the biggest problem is still...


Nevertheless, a flight path above the Navy Annex would require a banking to turn the plane into the final path through the lamp poles.
Total time 3-5 seconds.
Speed 370-620mph.
In other words, the plane is leveling at high speed just some feet above ground. At the same time it must turn about 7 in 1.5-2.5 seconds and a total of 12 in 3-5 seconds.

From the WTC flights we know that the wings flexing upwards. However, even a small banking angle is inconsistent with the damage to the light poles e.g. the starboard wing would miss pole 1 to hit pole 3 in the right elevation while all light poles on the left would be hit at a lower elevation.

THE PLANE DIDN'T BANK while clearing the bridge!

What's about a straight flightpath?


The major problem remains. The plane has to fly close to the ground into the "valley of death" while leveling to not hit the ground.

Albert Hemphill would have seen something like this:

...same for CGS and bridge. Right shoulder? Yes. Any higher altitude at that point in time would looks more like "over" the right shoulder.

The surveillance camera would see the very same. No difference.

Without banking the wings hit almost exactly the estimated elevations along the path through the light poles.


That's how it looks like from the north side of the Citgo Gas Station.

Would you say it banked right or would you say it banked left?
Would you say it came over the Navy Annex? More left? More right? In the middle?
You should see the GIF in about the real speed. Try to count about 4 seconds for the flight from the corner of the Navy Annex to the impact. If it works then ask yourself how many separate puffs or bangs you might hear or see from the light poles? Is "one flash" a good description of what he probably saw? What would you say?

(I would say: WOW HANI! HEY FRIENDS, THAT'S A f*** TERRIBLE CESSNA PILOT!)

Look at the tiny yellow cab above! A poor old black man is sitting in that car. It's all he has. He do it for living.
One second of PURE HELL! ...noise, flash, hot wind, some aluminum stick nearly impales him. The building next to him is exploding. ONE SECOND! Go and ask him where he was exactly and if he saw an American Airlines!

Where is the plane? Is it a big plane or a small plane? Is it over the Navy Annex or in front of it and right to the CGS? Banks it left or right?
For all these questions we have to distinguish between professionals and the "normal" witness. The answers could be the 100% opposite.

That's the view from the tower of the heliport and that...

...is the actual position of the plane.


Right, it's a big plane.

This post has been edited by achimspok: Jun 11 2010, 07:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
achimspok
post Jun 11 2010, 04:00 AM
Post #3





Group: Troll
Posts: 124
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,144



Is there any problem about that plane? Yes. And it looks like that:


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

But first let's have a look at the following witness drawing!

The little cross is the point of view.

Obviously Darius Prather tells us that the plane hit where the hole is. And obviously he saw the plane somewhere over the Navy Annex. So if the altitude of the plane was a little more than roof hight then the plane MUST have been on the south side of the Navy Annex. Keep in mind that one of the arguments for the impossibility of any "over or north of the NA" approach is that the plane had to bank extremely. According to Rob any turn of more than 5 can be excluded at that speed and for that distance. So what is the "Prather Banana"?
I would say the plane became bigger and bigger until it was scaring BIG and headed for the impact hole. That's "perception".
In other words that flight path is the description/perception of the "official flight path" seen through the eyes of a scared man.
Given the fact that the painted path is impossible for the plane without extreme banking and given the fact that it hit where it hit, we know - thanks CIT - that obviously the official path is the right path and that some BIG plane hit where it should.

The very same pattern is visible in almost ALL the painted paths I found.

CIT should immediately have noticed it because the argumentation for the north path is based (ONLY) on the "physical impossible" south path according to the NTSB data.

The NTSB data describe a path straight through/above the VDOT antenna mast. I don't know how exact these radar data can be (and may be these data were polished for the public without noticing the mast in the way) but ...

...a turn of about 7.5 is enough to miss the VDOT antenna north of it. The straight path through the damage (light poles, generator, wall) would be south of the VDOT mast.
Given the "felt" banana of distant north witnesses and the probably amplified impression of witnesses close to the path, I would place the flightpath in the south of the VDOT mast.
Nevertheless, let's have a look at the "north of VDOT" flight path in contrast to the CIT argumentation for a "proven North of Citgo path".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
achimspok
post Jun 11 2010, 04:02 AM
Post #4





Group: Troll
Posts: 124
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,144



It's been said that Edward Paik was in the best position. Was he?

"Looks like my shop here."
Notice the VDOT mast on the right. The Navy Annex is invisible from that position. It's on the left behind the shop.

"Loud noise that's why I running out..."
Given the speed and low altitude the entire flyby might have lasted for about 3 seconds.
Where was he? How fast can he run?

Let's look what he is describing?


It looks like south of Columbia pike. That's what he initially describes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
achimspok
post Jun 11 2010, 04:04 AM
Post #5





Group: Troll
Posts: 124
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,144



A little later Ed describes the wings over there and the body of the plane over his shop.
Well, that's Ed's banana. Otherwise he initially describes the path of the starboard wing tip.
Nevertheless, it's impossible that the plane was really that low to get the body over the shop and the wings in the shown direction.

Probably he saw something like this (but in 2 seconds) and ran out to see if the Navy Annex was hit. But it wasn't.
That's what he say what happened. And of course, in front of the bright sky the wings should look like dark gray.
Given the perceptional banana, is it possible that he saw the plane south of the VDOT mast?
If so then the plane could fly through the lamp poles without any banking straight into the hole.
IF ... and only IF ... "what-ever-piloting-that-BIG-BIG-plane" can manage the leveling.

QUOTE (John Bursill)
"I agree absolutely that the pressure on the airframe changes massively at low altitude as Balsamo states and that the effective "drag" and "air pressures" are equivalent to super sonic speeds at 510 Knots at sea level yes, but this pressure is only a catastrophic structural problem when the aircraft is changing direction."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
achimspok
post Jun 11 2010, 04:17 AM
Post #6





Group: Troll
Posts: 124
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,144



Robert Turcios is another CIT "north of Citgo" witness.

"I ran out here to see what's going on."
How fast can he run? He had about 3-4 seconds from the noise to the hit.
May be he heard the noise coming from "between the trees"???

Where was he?

He says he saw the plane approaching between the trees.

...these trees.

So he was at the south east corner of the Citgo gas station and saw the plane coming from the NORTH.



In other words, because of the 5 meters wide VDOT mast is standing exactly in the way of the NTSB data a 90 turned flight path is "scientifically" more reliable?

Imo Robert Turcios didn't see any plane at all. He heard the noise and the boom and ran up the grass bank to see the smoke.
"I could not probably see when it hit the pentagon..."
May be he told his manager that he saw the plane (however it effected the payroll). What should he tell his manager 9 years later?
...but that's just my impression.

Craig Ranke was on the scene? He saw the grass wall, saw the trees in the north?
He knew that an approach from behind Prather is extremely unlikely.


Later Robert Turcios painted that flight path when confronted with an aerial view of the scene.

He also saw that an approach between the trees isn't very believable even if it describes his impression best.
According to his own painting of his position !!! he woudn't see the plane coming from the painted direction at all because his entire view was blocked by the roof of the gas station.

(Nevertheless, an animation makes us believe that Robert Turcios talks the whole time about some "north of the Navy Annex" approach.
That's not the case! It should be said that the video gives no help for the viewer to understand where the witness is and where the trees are. )

Eyewitnesses of Flight 77 Debunk Government's Story 2/5

This post has been edited by achimspok: Jun 11 2010, 04:33 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
achimspok
post Jun 11 2010, 04:21 AM
Post #7





Group: Troll
Posts: 124
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,144



Here are two rough animations of the (imo) reasonable flight paths.

The red cubes on the right side showing the elevations of the
1) Navy Annex
2) light pole 1
3) Pentagon
taken from the P4T website.

These elevations differ from the Google Earth elevations but in comparison to photographs the P4T elevations are the correct ones.

The NORTH of VDOT path:


The SOUTH of VDOT path:


Questions:

* Do we have any hard evidence to definitely exclude a flight path near the VDOT tower? If so then is it a reason to prefer a north of Citgo path and flyby? If not then...

* Is one of these paths near the VDOT mast a believable result of coincidences and the decisions of an untrained and unexperienced "pilot"?

* Is there any reason not to choose the middle of the highway to prevent a collision with either the VDOT mast or the Navy Annex and to fly directly into the corner or south side of the Pentagon?





* Is either a special skill or special equipment necessary to succeed near the VDOT mast and along the path to the final impact hole?

* Is there any advantage to fake an attack by flying over the building and away?

This post has been edited by achimspok: Jun 11 2010, 04:39 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jun 11 2010, 10:33 AM
Post #8





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



I'm not following you here.

How do you explain the fact that all the Citgo witnesses, the ANC witnesses, and Sean Boger all place the plane north of the Citgo from different and opposing vantage points?

It would be impossible for Lagasse, Brooks, and Turicos to all make this drastic and wild "mistake".

Lagasse says he FIRST saw the plane when it was near this electrical transformer:


He says he thought the fuselage was about where the ANC stone fence is.

This is corroborated by all the ANC witnesses from the opposite perspective.

Why do you refuse to believe so many credible witnesses who independently corroborated this simple detail that proves 9/11 was an inside job?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
achimspok
post Jun 11 2010, 11:14 AM
Post #9





Group: Troll
Posts: 124
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,144



Well, I will have a look where the witness was and where the stone fence is and if he had a chance to see the plane.

The question is not about what I refuse or not and if it possibly proves an inside job.
The point is that e.g. Prather proves that the plane was exactly in the position where it should be
1) when it appeared
2) when it disappeared
The way in between is highly questionable because usually there is no BIG BIG plane in that empty sky and these people have no relation but clouds and feelings.

Paik, Hemphill, same thing.

It's not about to "prove" the official story wrong on any price. You know the word "proven fact" was a lot in use regarding backdrops, moving bridges and more like that.
What I found at first sight was an almost straight possible flight path very close to the NTSB and backed at least by some of you witnesses.

So my first question would be IF there is anything to distrust them (your witnesses) like Paik.
My second question would be if Hani would be able to fly down that hill between the obstacles and to level that plane at the given speed.
My third question would be why should he do so as long as the south face of the Pentagon was an easy target without obstacles but with leading landmarks.

If Hani did his homework and at least studied the landscape then the decision to choose the (renovated) west face appears completely idiotic (at least at a first glance).

So I will study your policeman If there is anything that would negate witnesses like Paik and Prather and Hemphill.

This post has been edited by achimspok: Jun 11 2010, 11:15 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jun 11 2010, 11:26 AM
Post #10





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Ignoring the pack of witnesses that Craig notes is one problem that I had with Achimspok's work.

The other was his methodology. He seems to start with the unsound assumption that the plane must have hit the light poles and works backward from that. He thus hinges everything he says on the plane having to take a path to fly level over and hit the poles.

I did see one positive thing. Ach seems to believe that the plane was remotely guided and at least trying to reconcile what he says with that, hence his perfectly straight and precise path that misses what has to be missed (VDOT Antenna, Pentalawn) and hits what has to be hit , and in the right way to boot (light poles, Pentagon at an angle somewhat consistent with its damage). But he's threading too tight a needle.

Ach starts by saying we should take a step back and look at the whole picture again. Here's a better way to do that from a neutral perspective. When you step back and look at everything everyone says, you have CIT with their evidence and testimony and the Other Pathers with their evidence and testimony. Well I'll be cow-kicked, two sides to every story. Where I come from, that calls for a trial where you look at all of it and try as best as possible to decide who is right. In this case the trial would be a new investigation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jun 11 2010, 12:56 PM
Post #11





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Your analysis of Turcios' account is ridiculous.

Did you even watch his interview? He was very consistent in his description of the flight path that matches his illustration perfectly.

But you decided to ignore what he says and simpy make up something that makes no sense as an excuse to dismiss his NoC testimony. You are going to great lengths to cast doubt on him even though he is corroborated by the police officers, Sean Boger, and all the ANC guys. Turcios never described the plane coming from the north.

His illustration matches his account perfectly.

Apparently you forgot this part of his interview:



He is describing the tip of the right wing being at the north edge of the canopy as the plane heads towards the Pentagon exactly like he illustrated.

He says it looked to him as if it flew over the tree behind him and that he saw the back end of the plane as it "picked up" over the highway.



He was very clear and detailed so you have no excuse to misinterpret his account.

Furthermore he is corroborated within a reasonable margin of error by all other witnesses in the vicinity who had a view of the Citgo station.



None of the witnesses illustrated your SoC flight path.

You are simply ignoring what the witnesses said and creating your OWN flight path that instead.

You are not a witness. You were not there. They were and they prove the plane flew NoC.

You are not helping the cause of 9/11 truth by making up your own story as a means to cast doubt on these important witnesses who prove the official story false.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jun 11 2010, 01:21 PM
Post #12





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Oh and why are you twisting Albert Hemphill's account?

He said it flew over the gas station but when asked to be specific regarding whether or not it was actually directly over the station or leaning more towards north or south he chose NORTH.

QUOTE
[7:36 - 8:38]

HEMPHILL: Um. But it went right over there towards where the heliport was. So if you go from where the old heliport was, and you draw a line straight back over the Navy Annex, it's gonna take you pretty much over the, the gas station.

RANKE: Okay. But would you say-- if you had to say that it was leaning toward one side of the gas station, perhaps a portion of the plane, or did it look directly over the top? Or what do you think?

HEMPHILL: Eh, I'd say more toward the cemetery side.

RANKE: A little bit more towards the cemetery side. Okay.


Corroborates Turcios PERFECTLY.





Plus note how certain he is that it flew DIRECTLY over the Navy Annex. That has been his story since his email from 9/12/2001. But now we know that he was on the NORTH side of the Navy Annex. So over his right shoulder would clearly still be DIRECTLY over the Navy Annex as he has always said. This is only reconcilable with a north side approach.



Right shoulder? Check.
Directly over Navy Annex? Check.
North of the Citgo? Check.


Furthermore after he already described the plane as being directly over the Navy Annex and NORTH of the gas station I then explained to him where Turcios, Lagasse, & Brooks placed the plane and he not only agreed with it, but he also admitted that they would have a "great" vantage point while also agreeing that it would be ridiculous for them all to make the same mistake!


QUOTE
RANKE: Now they [ANC witnesses, Citgo witnesses, and ATC Sean Boger] all describe it being between the gas station and Arlington cemetery, in that little area right there. So, you know, after...

HEMPHILL: Yeah.

RANKE: ...after Columbia Pike turns around, uh, goes in front of the Navy Annex and starts, um, uh, before it goes underneath the bridge, that's basically where they describe it. Between-- on the, on the north side of the gas station, um, just south of Arlington cemetery.

HEMPHILL: Yeah. I would say that's. . .pretty accurate.

RANKE: Okay. Now the problem with this--

HEMPHILL: And I'm s--. Uh, um, go ahead, I'm sorry.

RANKE: Well I'm sorry, what were you gonna say?

HEMPHILL: I was just gonna say they-- anybody who was out and about in that area right then in that area would have had a great vantage point if they were at the gas station.

RANKE: Precisely. There's zero room for- for perspective error, because they're sitting right there on the property. And they're just telling us hey, you know, what's-- where's this plane in relation to the gas station. And they all said it was on the north side. Obviously it was on-- if it was on the south side, um, it'd be pretty difficult for them to make that mistake, if not impossible, let alone all THREE of them to make that mistake.

HEMPHILL: Right. Right.



So please stop twisting their accounts in a desperate effort to cast doubt on the witnesses or support the official 757 impact narrative.

Apparently you actually believe Lloyde's ridiculous story too? You believe a 90 ton Boeing hit the light pole causing it to spear his windshield without scratching the hood of his car at all?



This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Jun 11 2010, 01:28 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FedeV
post Jun 11 2010, 02:04 PM
Post #13





Group: Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: 18-February 09
Member No.: 4,125



QUOTE (achimspok @ Jun 11 2010, 11:14 AM) *
Well, I will have a look where the witness was and where the stone fence is and if he had a chance to see the plane.


why you didn't look before posting?

I' ve found your post here too. Same thing:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpshitout/topic/3431619/1/#new
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jun 11 2010, 03:02 PM
Post #14





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (FedeV @ Jun 11 2010, 06:04 PM) *
why you didn't look before posting?



Some people like to make incoherent complex posts complete with animations without bothering to view the most relevant evidence in full!

That is a much more efficient approach when your goal is to cast doubt and confuse.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Jun 11 2010, 03:03 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jun 11 2010, 05:04 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

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



How did you come to your conclusions about that "minor" bank as the plane reached Route 27??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jun 11 2010, 06:27 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

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



Must be another student of the "post and run" academy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
achimspok
post Jun 11 2010, 09:53 PM
Post #17





Group: Troll
Posts: 124
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,144



QUOTE
"Ignoring the pack of witnesses that Craig notes is one problem..."


Ignoring what they really say is the other problem.

QUOTE
"He seems to start with the unsound assumption that the plane must have hit the light poles and works backward from that."


I don't start with the assumption that Paiks initial statement was the wrong statement.
I don't start with the assumption that the right shoulder is left.
I don't start with the assumption that the cab driver must be a lier.
I don't start with the assumption that an approach from the north is somehow consistent with the CGS canopy.
...and so on.

QUOTE
"Ach seems to believe that the plane was remotely guided..."


Since AA11 hit the dead center column at 490mph we don't need to be astonished about missing a VDOT mast and street signs during a leveling at high speed some ft above ground straight into the renovated side while the wide entrance in the south was wide open. But of course it is not very helpful to blame cabbies and to draw the attention away from these details by inventing a completely ridiculous scenario.

QUOTE
"In this case the trial would be a new investigation."


That's 100% right!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
achimspok
post Jun 11 2010, 09:54 PM
Post #18





Group: Troll
Posts: 124
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,144



QUOTE
"Your analysis of Turcios' account is ridiculous."


No, your "analysis" of his account is ridiculous.

QUOTE
"Did you even watch his interview? He was very consistent in his description of the flight path that matches his illustration perfectly."


C'mon Craig, I'm not an idiot. He show you where he was. SE corner. The Pentagon was out of sight behind a grass wall. The Navy Annex was out of sight behind the canopy of the CGS. YOU went to the north edge of CGS and pointed your camera to the trees in the north where he wanted to have seen the approach.

Where is he standing, Craig??? What direction is he showing?

It's simply impossible even at low speed that any plane from that direction flew over the canopy of CGS towards the Pentagon. NO WAY.
The entire rest is how you try to sell it.

QUOTE
"But you decided to ignore..."


No, I deceided to listen.

QUOTE
"...to dismiss his NoC testimony."


If an approach from the north and from behind Prather is a "NoC testimony" then YES! I dismiss it as a testimony for any plane involved in 9/11. Even if he would tell me that the plane was pink I wouldn't believe it because it NEVER EVER fits with every other detail we know so far nor his own drawing or any other testimony from a slightly different perspective.
So I have to suspect you to enhance the meaning of his words and gestures for a somehow fitting outcome. Same for Paik and others.

QUOTE
"Turcios never described the plane coming from the north."


You are a liar, Craig. You pointed your camera to the north to show the trees that he shows to you.

QUOTE
"His illustration matches his account perfectly."


Absolutely not. Google Earth might help you to review it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
achimspok
post Jun 11 2010, 09:55 PM
Post #19





Group: Troll
Posts: 124
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,144



QUOTE
Apparently you forgot this part of his interview:...


I'm absolutely sure that I didn't forgot where he was standing and from which side the plane should coming according to his previous statement.

QUOTE
You are not helping the cause of 9/11 truth by making up your own story as a means to cast doubt on these important witnesses who prove the official story false.


I cast doubt on your conclusions. Know why?
Example WILLIAM MIDDLETON SR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__WXAyiwGrs





From between the Sheridan and the Navy Annex? See where his finger finally points?
You know what it means aren't you?
It means the plane was on the south side of the Navy Annex. The rest is your interpretation and may be your funny aerial photo game. You have just to open your eyes and to listen what your witnesses telling you.
Do you have an idea where he would show you the plane IF it really came down the Southgate Rd.? He would point straight up. So you are the guy with the leading questions. Don't blame me for your faulty conclusions.

OK, you wanted me to listen to Sean Boger.

QUOTE
And I just happened to be looking out of the window and as I was looking out the window I could see a plane. The plane was coming directly at us.
And when I saw it I was just in amazement so I just... Well I just looked at it I mean... You know I fell to the ground and I covered my head.
... for 8 - 15 seconds ...

If I understand it right he either saw the plane at a distance of 2.2 miles or the plane had a speed of 125mph. Which way you would interpret it?
I prefer the 2.2miles version at the reported (NTSB) speed.

QUOTE
When I saw the airplane he was practically in front of the Navy Annex. I think that street is 227.

Wow, what happens here? What would you say, Craig? ... 8 to 15 seconds for less than 840 meters? What should we do with that statement?

Know what? I still believe in 2.2miles.

QUOTE
He was in front of the Navy Annex and I could see that the bottom of his ... It might have been his landing gear hit the top of the sign on the street.


Ah, may be there is some confusion. He saw the lamp poles were hit? Well, let's see how many lamp poles where hit north of Citgo? Not One! So my conclusion would be the the plane managed it between some 2.2 miles out point above the Navy Annex to the damaged lamp poles. What's your conclusion from the things he really says?

QUOTE
The information sign that's on the highway. And so he's coming like at an angle. You know his wings were tilted. Almost like he was in a... Like trying bank towards the Pentagon building.

So what he is probably talking about? ...scientifically! Is he talking about a banking in the very last second after passing the Navy Annex or is he possibly talking about a banking during the last 8-15 seconds?
What would you say, Craig? Did the plane possibly bank 1 or 2 miles out into some "North/South of VDOT" flight path? ...the Killer Position (just like the one and only last banking of UA175 10 seconds prior to the hit)? ...a straight passage through a suspicious difficult terrain or...
Would you say that it was a slow flying plane at about 125mph that never hit any "street sign" but voooshed over the roof of the Pentagon?

QUOTE
Craig: "Towards the Pentagon?"
Sean: "Yeah."
Craig: "You can see the gas station?"
Sean: "Yeah. It would be on my right and the Gas station's left.


2.2 miles out the plane was definitely on the right side of the Gas station.
Given the confusion between "8 - 15sec" (probable) and "in front of the Navy Annex" (improbable) I would conclude that the distant plane was visible over the gas station where it should be. What's your conclusion?
Oh, I already know. You take the "front of Navy Annex" instead. ...and the 125mph plane right of the gas station. Well, that's definitely not the way I interpret YOUR interview. Btw, thanks for making it. But as you see a lot of your witnesses apparently feel like "misinterpreted". Any idea? ...who is starting with a conclusion and works backwards?

QUOTE
Sean: "... It was like as he was coming towards me. It just seemed like he was tilting the aircraft to his right."

Wow! "...to his right..." That's pretty interesting from my point of view. Wanna know why? Because the NTSB animation ends with some right banking.

QUOTE
Sean: "You see I'm on the, I'm like two stories up. As I'm looking at that plane that plane didn't seem like it was level. It seemed like it was actually at a point of descent. So if it was let's say 3 stories high it was descending to 2 stories high. So it wasn't, I didn't see like anything level. ... I pretty much say it hit maybe between the 2nd and 3rd floor."


In the end I tell you what I see before my inner eyes: I see a plane 2.2 miles out over the Navy Annex - banking to his right - crashing through the light poles and into the building between the 2nd and 3rd floor.
It's a hard intellectual work to bow it into that flyover BS coming from north of the Navy Annex at what? 125mph?

This post has been edited by achimspok: Jun 11 2010, 10:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
achimspok
post Jun 11 2010, 09:56 PM
Post #20





Group: Troll
Posts: 124
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,144



QUOTE
"why you didn't look before posting?"


Did you? ... I mean really look at it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

11 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: 22nd October 2019 - 05:13 AM