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 )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Lloyde England Miracle Man 2, Staging of directional damage

onesliceshort
post Jun 29 2014, 10:49 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

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



You need to familiarize yourself with the Lloyd saga before reading on

These two presentations break it down:

http://www.thepentacon.com/LloydEngland_Ac...KnownAccomplice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho


First, let's establish the "facts" about the damage allegedly caused to lightpole 1 by a Boeing 757 as per the official story.

The base of lightpole 1 seen in multiple images is ca. 30ft in length. The entire pole is 40ft in length.

http://s27.postimg.org/nxlrhqvur/image.jpg

The official story has the alleged Boeing 757 in flight, at an alleged speed of 540mph, in a rapid descent and pulling multiple gs to line up with the directional damage through the Pentagon first floor. This is ridiculous in of itself, but let's look at the Lloyd England story using these figures.

The excessive forces allegedly being exerted on the aircraft would have the wingtips further extended upwards but we'll go with the conservative figure of 8ft.

http://s27.postimg.org/uibiksssj/image.jpg

[Runway height from base of fuselage/engine nacelle to wingtip according to above specs (feet and inches) = M(15-4) - D(8-1) = 7ft 3inches ]

The non verified Stutt "FDR data" has the aircraft in level flight at this point. It's not the official story but government loyalists are married to this. And the damage to the other lightpoles (although lightpole 2 has never been verified AFAIK) demands level flight.

http://s4.postimg.org/ilz7w95kd/image.jpg

The directional damage also demands a trajectory of 61.5

http://s28.postimg.org/m6g1h4tcd/image.jpg


Using these figures, the official story has the aircraft at a conservative 20-22ft agl as it crosses Rt 27 allegedly clipping lightpole 1 at this maximum altitude.


Enter stage left Lloyd England..

As seen in the videos linked to earlier, prior to the unearthing of the NOC witnesses, Lloyde's story changed from basically claiming to be on the bridge as per the official story, multiple images and when he let it slip to CIT, to complete denial and fudging.

http://s28.postimg.org/jmft9agel/image.jpg


Based on his testimony and the physical damage seen on the interior and exterior of his cab:

1) He claims that he was driving south towards the bridge where the lightpoles are situated

2) He claims that he was driving at 40mph (in a later interview to Pentagon disinformationist Jeff Hill he claimed "50mph"). He also claimed that he skidded for "40ft" with the base of the pole protruding from his windscreen. He even indicated this in a drawing:

http://s27.postimg.org/y6e8nkjwj/image.jpg

3) He claims that the entire ca. 30ft base of the pole speared his windscreen with the cut end wedging into the base of the back seat, and the heavier end balanced over the hood of the cab (as can be seen in the above image)

4) He initially claimed that he saw the aircraft, then claimed that he didn't. That he doesn't remember any details.


How does his story compare to the official story?

First off, let's assume that Lloyde was travelling at the stated "40mph". According to a general formula on braking distance (in dry conditions), the "thinking distance" is 40ft. The actual "braking distance" is 80ft.

http://s28.postimg.org/h7nxov05p/image.jpg

A total of 120ft/40m. This is a conservative figure as any "reaction" would logically have been delayed by the alleged suddenness of the event he described.

This would put Lloyd around this area (more likely, if his story were true, on one of the two inner lanes, and not the lane beside the bridge) but the difference is minimal)

Here's the 120ft/40m distance from where his cab was seen on the bridge

http://s28.postimg.org/v7ukuqr9p/image.jpg
http://s28.postimg.org/c5b77tg99/image.jpg


We also have to take in to account the alleged time between the aircraft hitting the lightpole and striking his windshield.

I've used the same distance for the sake of argument, and extended the measurement from Lloyd's alleged placement (according to the brake distance) to lightpole 1. About 50m/150ft

http://s28.postimg.org/irt9n98jx/image.jpg


Now that we have an estimate of Lloyd's alleged position on the road, let's look at the aircraft in relation to the poles, the road and Lloyd's cab.

Remember that the aircraft, according to the official story, was on a 61.5 trajectory.

According to this trajectory and Lloyd's alleged approximate placement on the road, the right wing would have made initial contact with lightpole 1 as the nose of the aircraft first intersected Route 27. If not directly over Lloyde's cab, then just in front of it.




How does his story compare to the physical damage to the pole?

Images of lightpole 1 show that is was bent and snapped into a closed point. This was allegedly done by the right wingtip. The right wingtip was also allegedly responsible for the damage done to lightpole 3 along the same trajectory.

http://s15.postimg.org/uzgy1rke3/image.jpg

There are no images of debris along the directional damage path. Images that were allegedly taken within minutes of the event by Jason Ingersoll and Daryl Donley (images available if required)


What we are meant to believe is that a wingtip sliced straight through two 247lb lightpoles at 540mph. This alleged damage also demands that there was no deceleration. That the lightpole was allegedly sliced towards the trajectory of the aircraft. 61.5.


The Boeing 757 has a swept wing. Swept back to 25.

http://s30.postimg.org/dcwrozmcx/image.jpg


Not only do we have damage to the lightpole that demands that it was immediately sliced through, but the 25 sweep of the wing would have the lightpole further pushed away from the oncoming cab.


In summary, according to the physical damage we have a 155ft long Boeing 757 travelling on a 61.5 heading at ca. 20-22ft agl as it reached the Route 27 bridge.

We have Lloyde England allegedly travelling at 40mph towards an aircraft that was heading in an approximate 45 angle towards his cab.

The right wingtip allegedly sliced straight through this lightpole at ca. 30ft above the base.

The 25 sweep of the alleged aircraft would push this further away increasing this 45 trajectory of the cab in relation to the aircraft.

How did a ca. 30ft, 247lb pole travel ca.150ft below a fuselage allegedly 20-22ft above the road, turn almost 180 in mid air and spear Lloyde's cab through the center of the windshield and stop midway along the backseat between the driver and passenger seat?






Another 9/11 miracle. More to follow...




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jun 30 2014, 12:13 AM
Post #2





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



Excellent work OSS!

Students of 9/11 truth would do well to make a bookmark here with this research.

If ever there was smoking-gun evidence exposing the entire 9/11 inside job, this is it.
I say the 'entire' job because any time one piece of the official story can be proven to be false, everything else must, by default be false as well.

The beauty of this evidence is that it is all provided courtesy of the U.S. government.
It is all theirs, not ours.

Government lawyers would naturally try to downplay Mr. England's story given to Craig Ranke of what happened on 9/11 with his cab and the pole, but the beauty of physics is that his story really doesn't matter at all.

Why do I say this?

All we need are the photos of the FBI agents gathered around his cab, pole one on the ground and the other poles on the ground.
That is all we need.

There is no physical explanation for having pole one lying in the middle of the highway!

If the government goes with Mr. England's story, it will be shot down in a few minutes.

If they choose to discount his story as being unreliable, they will have to re-write the physics books to explain how the pole could have ended up in the middle of the road after being struck by the 757 traveling at 540 mph at the angle it was traveling at.

When I did my study of the angle of impact of the 757's right wing and pole one I hadn't even considered Mr. England's car being 40-120 ft. away.

It would have been physically impossible for the light pole to have speared his cab in the fashion Mr. England described (pole hitting basically head on with his windshield, no angle) had he been directly underneath the plane as it supposedly clipped the pole.

With Mr. England situated 40-120 ft. away from the plane as it supposedly hit the light pole, it makes a collision between his car and the pole completely laughable and absurd.

The pole would have been heading off the road towards the Pentagon and very very fast, considering that the plane would have hit the Pentagon approximately one second after hitting the light pole.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jun 30 2014, 06:57 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

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



Thanks Mike. Your thread inspired me to blow the dust off old files of mine.

Don't forget that the OCT aircraft (base of fuselage) was supposedly 20-22ft above the bridge. And that this ca. 30ft section of pole had to somehow wing its way past the allegedly low flying aircraft itself.

QUOTE
The beauty of this evidence is that it is all provided courtesy of the U.S. government.
It's all theirs, not ours.


Exactly.

Imagine this were a reverse situation where truthseekers had to push this story. We'd be laughed at. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jun 30 2014, 06:03 PM
Post #4





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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 30 2014, 05:57 AM) *
Don't forget that the OCT aircraft (base of fuselage) was supposedly 20-22ft above the bridge. And that this ca. 30ft section of pole had to somehow wing its way past the allegedly low flying aircraft itself.


I don't think we should introduce this information to help make our case.

It's the directional evidence that is the most powerful of everything available to us.

If we were to slow down the hypothetical plane's travel and impact on the pole to a crawling speed of say, 10 m.p.h, it would be easier to visualize the following:
The pole (had it been impacted) would first snap downwards towards the road, and away from the fuselage (given the angle of the wing). It wouldn't be trying to make its way to the left under the belly of the fuselage.

If we speed things up to 500+ m.p.h. the same would apply, only now the pole would have much more kinetic energy imparted to it, throwing it further across the road (and away from Mr. England's cab).

But if the pole did manage to go against Newton's laws of momentum and attempt to fly counter to its initial trajectory (ie. to the left after impact, then one could envisage the pole ducking under the fuselage and not hitting it).

So basically the argument that the fuselage would act as a shield preventing the pole from traveling towards the cab is both; not necessary, given the powerful directional evidence available and also not convincing as the pole could have ducked under the fuselage if it somehow managed to evade Newton's laws of physics (momentum).





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jun 30 2014, 10:34 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

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



Mike

The altitude is definitely secondary but bringing it up to counter Lloyde's story is a valid argument. Here's an image from (roughly) Lloyde's alleged position when he claimed the lightpole speared his cab



Lightpoles 1 and 2 are on the right. That overhead sign is roughly 20ft tall. According to the official story, the nose of the aircraft would be over the furthest lane to the right between those poles just as the rght wingtip supposedly sliced through lightpole 1 within a fraction of a second.

Here's a better idea of it here



While the wingtip is allegedly slicing through this lightpole, the entire fuselage has to pass Lloyde. There's no way a 30ft pole is going to slide under the fuselage. The pole would have to travel straight down the middle of Lloyde's lane to cause the damage. And there's no damage to the asphalt.

Well, apart from the scrape where the pole was dragged from somewhere behind Lloyde's car

http://s8.postimg.org/ya010nkc5/image.jpg

http://s8.postimg.org/9590n8kvp/image.jpg (look at the ground behind Lloyde's open door)


I know what you're saying but for me, the imagery is important to get the point across. As you say, the main point is the glaring contradiction in the physics of the alleged pole strike and Lloyde's story.

I'm going to post more on this re witnesses (not one person corroborates anything he describes), a look at the other poles, and speculation, based on evidence, of how they pulled it off.

Sidenote: Look at the other poles. Three allegedly moved just inches from where they were allegedly struck. One "fell" down a steep embankment. Lloyde's was overkill.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 3 2014, 12:46 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

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



Was this another Lloyde England scenario that was abandoned?

Another "freelance photographer" allegedly took this photo at the north end of the Pentagon on Route 27





Look closely at the damage to the passenger side. What physical force caused that??

Flying chunks of masonry? No. There were no sizeable pieces at the scene that could have possibly caused that damage.

Aircraft debris? Ummmm nope.

A lightpole? No. Lightpole 1 was the only one that supposedly "flew" more than a couple of feet. And this car was allegedly driving north.

The force of the explosion? No. This damage can only have been caused by a severe downward force.

Notice

1. The scraped paintwork

2. The upper left hand corner of the door frame has almost ripped away

3. Where's the glass??

The car was abandoned as far as I'm concerned. No follow up story by the media. No "Survivor Fund" story. Nothing. Just that image.

If that car had been beside Lloyde and another story spun, would it have fitted right in?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jul 3 2014, 11:02 PM
Post #7





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



Fascinating stuff OSS!

I first learned about this mysterious car here on this site a few months ago.

Do we have any additional information about it?
It's inscribed in the photo car + part.
I assume this is where this car was located?
What is the part that is mentioned?

Do we know who was the person who took the photo?
They surely must have more leads to it?
The time it was taken?
License plate number etc.?

The damage does indeed look very clean and 'manufactured'.
Also strange that there is no window glass.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 3 2014, 11:46 AM) *
Was this another Lloyde England scenario that was abandoned?
If that car had been beside Lloyde and another story spun, would it have fitted right in?


Good questions.

One would think that the England/pole scenario was planned at least days if not weeks in advance.
It's hard to imagine that they would flag down a random driver and force them to keep their mouth closed.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 4 2014, 12:38 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

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



Hi Mike

More info on the source of the images and alleged story behind it here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10795859

There was another image from another angle (still searching) but I don't remember seeing the reg.

In one of my first posts at this forum I had suggested that Lloyd's story had snowballed from a possible insurance scam or cry for attention. And that he was pressured into this scenario. That his window was broken by masonry or the explosion and that he had exaggerated the event. Until it was pointed out to me that there was internal damage to the car that morning that he would go on to use as "proof" of the lightpole. An event that is impossible.

Note: Personal speculation

Looking at it operationally, I'd say that the damage to the windscreen was done on the ring road that stretches from the underpass to Route 27. There's one particular area just beyond the ANC buildings that was sheltered from view of drivers on Route 27:



There was no traffic whatsoever southbound in front of the Pentagon allegedly just minutes after the explosion (Steve Riskus photos) so there may have been vehicles slowing traffic down (and blocking the view up ahead) between the front of the Pentagon and the bridge while Lloyde moved in to place. Not that many people would have been looking straight ahead!

Remember that nobody mentions the cab (even those in the immediate area) and that the first images of the bridge were taken about 7-8 minutes after the event. There are even images of cars driving over the bridge (including two white vans almost side by side - the "blockers"?) past the scene and nobody has come forward to date.

Lloyde also said that "a friend" which later became a "complete stranger in a van" helped him with the pole (that nobody saw sticking out of his windshield).

I've often thought that Lloyde was part of a drill that was going on at the Pentagon and is what Lloyde actually thinks (or tells himself) that is being covered up. With the NOC evidence, he's caught between a rock and a hard place. An alleged cover up within a cover up. Usually the way they get people to play ball. That and financial incentive coupled with death threats. Sticky situation man. I don't know what I would do.

That damaged car just sets alarm bells off every time I see it. And I know the above is speculation but I can't see any other way of doing it.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Jul 4 2014, 09:56 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



The story of Lloyd England was truly miraculous and yet strangely has never really escaped out into the wild - no heart-rending films of his escape from the jaws of death. That's because the story is such a crock of shite that even the dumbed down, celebrity, big brother populus wouldn't buy it. It is no accident at all that the "truth movement" imploded over the NOC discovery, the planners know this is the weakest part of the story and also knew that the way to defuse it would be for "the same side" to be arguing about it.

Which is my way of saying - good on you OSS for keeping this alive, it is the smoking gun and has caused many notable "truthers" to turn logical somersaults in order to defend the official story thus outing themselves as the traitors that a few of us always suspected them to be. The whole NOC/Lloyd England tale is my way of working out who is genuine and who is not in the search for truth.

Sorry I have been absent so long and keep up the good work.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jul 4 2014, 11:02 PM
Post #10





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



Thank goodness for the downed light poles and Mr. England!

The perps goofed big-time at the Pentagon.

Instead of creating this weird entry angle, necessitating all the downed poles, they could have just had a more straight on approach that would have avoided hitting most of them.

The taxi cab 'hit' scenario also was quite unnecessary. But since there would be no plane debris evidence at the site, they probably felt something was needed to prove a plane had made its way into the building; enter Mr. England.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 5 2014, 07:21 AM
Post #11



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jul 5 2014, 04:02 AM) *
Thank goodness for the downed light poles and Mr. England!

The perps goofed big-time at the Pentagon.

Instead of creating this weird entry angle, necessitating all the downed poles, they could have just had a more straight on approach that would have avoided hitting most of them.

The taxi cab 'hit' scenario also was quite unnecessary. But since there would be no plane debris evidence at the site, they probably felt something was needed to prove a plane had made its way into the building; enter Mr. England.


Thing is, the "weird entry angle" is the only way through to the Pentagon from the west. And the only way through to the accountants on the first floor

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22745

Lloyde, as CIT once put it, was the "human connection" to the alleged physical damage.


@KP Good to see ya mate!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Jul 5 2014, 02:50 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 5 2014, 11:21 PM) *
Thing is, the "weird entry angle" is the only way through to the Pentagon from the west. And the only way through to the accountants on the first floor

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22745

Lloyde, as CIT once put it, was the "human connection" to the alleged physical damage.


@KP Good to see ya mate!

Thanks man.

Yes that angle fulfilled all requirements - couldn't have the plane hitting high up on the building if you need it to disappear completely. Anyone with common sense knows that no large plane hit the Pentagon and yet still the myth persists. Incredible really.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jul 6 2014, 08:04 PM
Post #13





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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 5 2014, 06:21 AM) *
Thing is, the "weird entry angle" is the only way through to the Pentagon from the west. And the only way through to the accountants on the first floor

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22745



But I'd like to know why they had to come from the west?
And I'd like to know if that entry angle was the only way to target the accountants?
If the plane supposedly penetrated the wall, then it could have penetrated it with almost any entry angle.

I know they had to target that general area because it was recently fortified and prepped for a supposed plane strike, but it's the angle of penetration that I'd like to have more clearly explained.

Besides, even if the accountants offices weren't directly in line with the plane's entry path, any bombs eliminating them could be attributed to subsequent airplane-induced fires/collapses etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 6 2014, 09:51 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

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



Mike, it's contained within that link (Hani Hanjur, Miracle Man). They had to "follow" that route (as lain out in the prefabricated FDR data) to get to the first floor as per the official story. Think of the perps as working backwards from the desired target. Any attack on the Pentagon would have to be at ground level to carry off the show.

There was a 180ft wide target to negotiate between signs 1 (Lloyde scenario) and sign 2 (the "Turcios sign"). 28ft either side of the wingspan of an alleged 757.

They couldn't go left of the "Turcios sign" because there are two tall trees. They couldn't go to the right of Lloyde's sign because 1. there's an 80ft VDOT camera and 2. the bridge/underpass is almost at the height of the Pentagon roofline (and the south side/loading dock area would have to have been the "target". No good)

They could have simply pointed the nose at and dived in to the Pentagon (setting all of the pesky 9/11 aerodynamic issues aside rolleyes.gif) but this was never to be about an aircraft being used as a missile. This was controlled at ground level from the lightpoles through to the "exit hole".

I believe that they actually intended to fly the directional damage path (because of the height of the ground level on the bridge and that they still intended to fly over the building) but they fucked up the illusion.

I believe that the "final leg" of the flight came in even further south by southwest (from east of the Potomac River - multiple sources) than the blip that was reportedly seen on radar up until before the Sheraton Hotel (not to be mistaken for the debunked "two plane theory" - I'll save that for another thread). This route would provide terrain masking from the ATC radars and be a complete surprise to the witnesses within the basin of land there.

My 2cents.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jul 7 2014, 08:12 PM
Post #15





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



Thanks OSS. I follow everything except for these two:

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 6 2014, 08:51 PM) *
They could have simply pointed the nose at and dived in to the Pentagon (setting all of the pesky 9/11 aerodynamic issues aside rolleyes.gif) but this was never to be about an aircraft being used as a missile.
This was controlled at ground level from the lightpoles through to the "exit hole".

I believe that they actually intended to fly the directional damage path (because of the height of the ground level on the bridge and that they still intended to fly over the building) but they fucked up the illusion.


I don't understand why this was chosen to be "controlled at ground level from the lightpoles through to the "exit hole" and not say, as you mentioned, "an aircraft being used as a missile."
The first seems much more complicated.

As I said, wherever the "missile" would supposedly hit, they could have have easily expanded that zone (with bombs) and blamed fire etc. for causing any subsequent deaths.

Could you also explain what you meant by "they still intended to fly over the building) but they fucked up the illusion."?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 7 2014, 10:41 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jul 8 2014, 01:12 AM) *
Thanks OSS. I follow everything except for these two:



I don't understand why this was chosen to be "controlled at ground level from the lightpoles through to the "exit hole" and not say, as you mentioned, "an aircraft being used as a missile."
The first seems much more complicated.

As I said, wherever the "missile" would supposedly hit, they could have have easily expanded that zone (with bombs) and blamed fire etc. for causing any subsequent deaths.

Could you also explain what you meant by "they still intended to fly over the building) but they fucked up the illusion."?


The ground level attack - explosives placed within the building and outside the building, possibly a mortar type device fired from the generator trailer to cause the superficial damage to the facade (my personal theory). Lightpoles were downed beforehand with Lloyde being the "connection" to the alleged physical damage.

A ground level attack would be much more controlled with 0% chance of failure in targeting the renovated section of the Pentagon, but they messed up the illusion by flying NOC (and the facade didn't immediately collapse)

The bridge would have been the best path to fly to execute the flyover. Look at the Pentagon roofline in relation to it:




As for the possibility that "they" could have "pointed the nose" at the building, I was referring to when the aircraft was allegedly at altitude with the Pentagon in sight.

But we have to be realistic here.

There's no way a standard 757 could execute the official manouevre and have it line up with this 180ft wide target at cruise speed, in descent and pulling gs with Hani at the wheel. There's just no way. This is pure fantasy.

They couldn't just fly an aircraft into any section of the Pentagon because the renovated section was open to being set up for rigging. A worksite. People coming and going with equipment. Nobody would look twice at a bunch of guys with wiring, drilling holes, tarpaulins, whatever. They could hardly rig occupied offices with military personnel.

As for a remote controlled guided missile type craft, the above still applies. There's still the high risk of it smashing in to one of many obstacles, flying out of control, and most importantly, run the risk of the debris being sprayed all over witnesses, blue collar military and unwitting "journalists".

Not so complicated for the events in Manhattan. The Pentagon is a five storey building tucked away at sea level surrounded by buildings, highways, a steep trajectory to reach it and multiple obstacles.

There's just no chance they would run that risk. For me, the whole scenario is manufactured from start to finish. Working backwards - damage engineered at ground level, an airshow (and possible transponder switches) for ATCs, intentional mis/disinfo in communications, while another flew below radar into the. Pentagon basin. Finally, cement the lie with the alleged FDR. An FDR where there were supposedly "missing seconds" within the most controversial area. And in the same alleged timeframe in which ATC radars lost their signals.

Summary: the FDR was to be the sole physical evidence that an aircraft had crashed. It was known that ATCs would lose contact with any aircraft before the Sheraton. The "final leg" would be recorded by the FDR. The link. That and the next link would be the supposed physical damage, especially Lloyde.

All messed up by the NOC witnesses.

Again, personal speculation but I think we're beyond whether or not the aircraft flew over or by the Pentagon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jul 12 2014, 06:41 PM
Post #17





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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 7 2014, 09:41 PM) *
The ground level attack - explosives placed within the building and outside the building, possibly a mortar type device fired from the generator trailer to cause the superficial damage to the facade (my personal theory). Lightpoles were downed beforehand with Lloyde being the "connection" to the alleged physical damage.

A ground level attack would be much more controlled with 0% chance of failure in targeting the renovated section of the Pentagon, but they messed up the illusion by flying NOC (and the facade didn't immediately collapse)


Thanks OSS.
I'm beginning to understand your explanation.
I was simply confused about your terminology.
I didn't know what you meant by "ground level attack".

I thought you meant a plane attacking at ground level as opposed to attacking the Pentagon on a different floor or angle.
Now I understand you just meant that the attack was planned/designed on the ground (without the use of any plane) and with the use of explosives and possibly a mortar from the trailer.

QUOTE
There's no way a standard 757 could execute the official manouevre and have it line up with this 180ft wide target at cruise speed, in descent and pulling gs with Hani at the wheel. There's just no way. This is pure fantasy.


I understand this.

QUOTE
They couldn't just fly an aircraft into any section of the Pentagon because the renovated section was open to being set up for rigging. A worksite. People coming and going with equipment. Nobody would look twice at a bunch of guys with wiring, drilling holes, tarpaulins, whatever. They could hardly rig occupied offices with military personnel.


I understand this too.
All I was asking was why they couldn't have faked a flight coming into the renovated section at a different angle than they planned. A different angle might have meant fewer light poles to deal with etc.

QUOTE
As for a remote controlled guided missile type craft, the above still applies. There's still the high risk of it smashing in to one of many obstacles, flying out of control, and most importantly, run the risk of the debris being sprayed all over witnesses, blue collar military and unwitting "journalists".


I agree.


QUOTE
All messed up by the NOC witnesses.


Absolutely.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 11 2014, 10:56 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

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



Can anybody spot the object in this photo that doesn't seem to belong there?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Aug 12 2014, 06:03 AM
Post #19





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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Aug 12 2014, 12:26 PM) *
Can anybody spot the object in this photo that doesn't seem to belong there?



Dear 'onesliceshort'

Please: what are you on about?

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 12 2014, 09:35 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (23investigator @ Aug 12 2014, 11:03 AM) *
Dear 'onesliceshort'

Please: what are you on about?

Robert S


Could be nothing but seeing as how this is the only feasible area where Lloyde's windscreen could have been broken then driven into position, it stands out to me



http://s29.postimg.org/pvd6dm67r/image.jpg

http://s29.postimg.org/rxdnrv46v/image.jpg

http://s29.postimg.org/rjcbs9k3b/image.jpg
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th August 2019 - 07:07 AM