Important Conference With Cit And P4t, July 11 at 10:00am in Arlington, VA Options

[onesliceshort]

From what I understand the pentagon was lower, topographically, than most of the surrounding area. The lowest point on decoy 77 approach?
How much higher are the tops of the lightpoles from the First (ground?) floor of the pentagon?

What happens to a projectile (plane or bullet) after it hits, or goes through something, on the way toward its' target?

Is there even any avian approach toward the location of the damage to the pentagon, that doesn't have obstacles in the way?

I suspect that it is impossible for a plane to hit that part of the pentagon without risking getting destroyed by some obstacle, on, and in the way.

Otherwise, it would have been much simpler just to fly a plane into the pentagon, for the same effect.

This is probably the reason for the flyover, instead.

...I need coffee.

I know from an observational standpoint that lightpoles 1 and 2 (and 3?) are higher topographically than the first and second floor of the Pentagon (at LEAST) and Im with you 100% on what you´re saying about the obstacles around the Pentagons, Lunk.
The right wing alone was meant to have sheared through 3 lightpoles, a wire fence AND to have torn through a steel container AND a diesel generator.
Just on those points ALONE should we not believe a plane hit the building.
Point taken. Makes more sense than anything for the reason for the flyover.
I would just like to know exactly what documentation was held in all those safes that were supposedly destroyed
(250 plus of them) opened in a warehouse originally used for destruction of documents.
Im not saying this was the reason for the flyover but I´m sure, as with WTC7, these events were raped to the full by the perps and the traitors who helped them.
I scratch your back...etc.

I need a coffee too mate...lol

[realitycheck77]

I watched the CIT presentation and as I understand it the conclusion that the plane flew over the Pentagon is based ,firstly on the witnesses who describe a 'north side ' flightpath, combined with the damage to the Pentagon,lightpoles etc which indicate a different path so it therefore had to have flown over the building. So the fly-over conclusion is based on these witnesses and a non-independently verrified report ,done by the 'suspects', on a faked aircrash, which doesn't seem to me the most solid of grounds for your conclusions.

This post has been edited by realitycheck77: Aug 11 2009, 07:06 PM

[onesliceshort]

I watched the CIT presentation and as I understand it the conclusion that the plane flew over the Pentagon is based ,firstly on the witnesses who describe a 'north side ' flightpath, combined with the damage to the Pentagon,lightpoles etc which indicate a different path so it therefore had to have flown over the building. So the fly-over conclusion is based on these witnesses and a non-independently verrified report ,done by the 'suspects', on a faked aircrash, which doesn't seem to me the most solid of grounds for your conclusions.

Which conclusions are you referring to?
The NoC corraborrative testimony paired with the flyover witnesses 100% put the plane´s path on a very different course which makes the lightpole damage and consequent building damage an impossibility.
The ´100 impact witness´ lie has been proven to be just that, a lie.
So if the damage has been proven to be an impossibility what other conclusion can be reached other than a flyover.
NoC testimony and the damage are non compatible.
If you´re referring to the MOTIVES/REASONING there are many but at this point it is speculation, so fair enough.
If you are referring to the Global Hawk theory, I said I believed the plane was more than likely modified to carry out the manouevre but that again is speculative but a fair comment to make.
The most important point is that the testimony in the CIT investigation prove without a doubt, let´s be clear on this, that ANY sort of plane impacted that day.

[lunk]

Here is an interesting exercise,

Think of the planning that must have went into making a fake plane crash.

The traffic would have to be stopped ahead of time, just out of sight of the pentagon.
most of the poles would have had to have been staged before the event.
The assemblage of a pyrotechnical flash and fireball, and explosives throughout the building to resemble a plane crash.
All the video cameras in sight of the flightpath and/or pentagon would have to be sourced prior to the event, and seized immediately after.
The event, especially the initial pyrotechnical flash, that will temporarily blind anybody left, in a position to be watching, had to be timed perfectly with the planes' closest approach to the pentagon,
with the fireball after that as a distraction,
then, the interior demolitions could be detonated, after,
in the smoke and confusion.

Like I said, it would have been easier to fly a plane into the pentagon,
but they couldn't, because there were too many obstacles in the way!

just imho

(edit) synonym

This post has been edited by lunk: Aug 11 2009, 09:36 PM

[onesliceshort]

Yep, 100% with you there Lunk.
Ingersoll´s photos of the goon roadblock just 3 minutes after the explosion proves just that.
Donley´s photo of the secondary explosion gives us an idea of the brightness and size of the original fireball.
Videos were confiscated, even 911 calls to this day are held by these people even though the New York calls were released.
The plane just happened to ´crash´into the renovated part of the Pentagon where explosives could very well have been planted both for destruction and for spreading preplaced plane parts.
Debris was found as far as the motorway. The severe LACK of debris just in front of the ´impact point´ suggests that the debris was flung up and away from this point (maybe from the generator container seeing as how on closer inspection it is empty yet there is no generator debris in the area around the container)
How is that possible when the official line paints an incredible INWARD trajectory of energy at an angle?
Witnesses described debris falling around them on some parts of the motorway up to 30 seconds (exaggerated a little maybe) after the fireball.
People in the Sheraton and Navy Annex felt the explosion yet many INSIDE the Pentagon felt and heard nothing. Again suggesting a directional explosion.

Sorry for waffling on. Just thinking out loud.

Good exercise Lunk!

Cheers mate.

[lunk]

it would have been easier to fly a plane into the pentagon,
but they couldn't, because there were too many obstacles in the way!

This is where they probably got the idea to stage the light poles,
with the added emotional validity of Lloyd and his cab.

The things that went wrong in their plan:

The plane came in on the wrong approach.
The explosives inside the pentagon went off too late, after the fireball.
Lloyd wasn't quite clever enough to play dumb.