American 77, Possible explanation of Pentagon attack anomalies. Options

[gerryhiles]

I have lost the source for what follows - whilst ruminating on it (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

Anyhow:

I read a theory which seems to answer anomalies, e.g. that little wreckage of an airliner was found.

The theory runs that there was indeed an airliner - which agrees with eye-witness accounts and the light poles.

It further posits that the plane was packed with explosives - which could account for so little wreckage and the 'small' hole.

Further: it posits that "impossible flight patterns" might be accounted for by an onboard automatic pilot/guidance system. Also there was discussion about airframe 'over-design' which seemed plausible - but I am only a very low-grade engineer (former toolmaker) and no aviator, so I can't evaluate, but it did cover how ground-lift could have been countered.

Sorry I can't recall the source and maybe you have considered this option already, but I thought I'd mention it anway. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

This post has been edited by gerryhiles: Oct 23 2010, 09:00 AM

[gerryhiles]

BTW it seems the times are ripe for "change we can really believe in", since Wikileaks and rapidly increasing numbers of people not believing the 'official version'.

[lunk]

I have lost the source for what follows - whilst ruminating on it (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

Anyhow:

I read a theory which seems to answer anomalies, e.g. that little wreckage of an airliner was found.

The theory runs that there was indeed an airliner - which agrees with eye-witness accounts and the light poles.

It further posits that the plane was packed with explosives - which could account for so little wreckage and the 'small' hole.

Further: it posits that "impossible flight patterns" might be accounted for by an onboard automatic pilot/guidance system. Also there was discussion about airframe 'over-design' which seemed plausible - but I am only a very low-grade engineer (former toolmaker) and no aviator, so I can't evaluate, but it did cover how ground-lift could have been countered.

Sorry I can't recall the source and maybe you have considered this option already, but I thought I'd mention it anway. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

Yes, sources, there seem so many.
Here is one source, where i find the best concentration of excellence.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down.

If it was a drone plane loaded with explosives,
it seems to be flying a little high, for that theory.

[tnemelckram]

Hi Gerryhiles and welcome!

I'm with you on the remote control as a likely possibility. The explosive packed plane is a remote possibility. But as Lunk notes, the government provided FDR data (which has dubious provenance) places the plane too high to have struck the Pentagon, explosive-laden or not.

But it is good to search for further explanations that tie everything together and account for the many, many anomalies.
There is one possible way to tie together the North Path, the fly over, the inconsistent building damage. the inconsistent FDR data, remote control and a plane full of explosives that were not used. Perhaps that the North Path and fly over were the result of a mis-communication, malfunction or other mistake in execution. When something goes wrong at the last minute of a plan that already requires deception and cover stories, you suddenly need a totally unforeseen second layer of cover ups, and have to execute those on the fly without careful thought, thereby increasing the chances of further errors and contradictions in an initial plan that was already prone to the same thing even if it were executed perfectly. There are not just contradictions and anomalies but also double contradictions and anomalies in the Pentagon picture, and the doubling could be the result of a hasty cover-up overlaid on the carefully thought out existing plans for a cover-up.

[elreb]

Curiosity killed the cat was a proverb used to warn against being too curious lest one come to harm.

But I have always wondered how they staged Lloyd England’s non drivable cab in the middle of a six lane highway.

They must have had a back lot someplace where a crane was used to pull a light pole into the car’s windshield then transport it and all the material to the scene w/o being noticed.

Wasn’t it called Project MKULTRA?

[amazed!]

I suspect MKULTRA had at least somethingto do with it.

[lunk]

Going by what we know,
the whole event was planned in advance,
that would include Lloyd and the cab.

...and for a light-pole, not hit by a plane, in the middle of a busy road,
to happen to go through the windshield of a cab while it was being driven,
with no one else seeing this, is as impossible as ridiculous.

They must have blocked off car traffic in the morning, before the event,
at the pentagon, to stage all of this.

[gerryhiles]

Got the source, after fossicking around.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...nDrLeggeAug.pdf

The meat comes after about page seven. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[gerryhiles]

BTW - and this is only my own musings (how else?):

If the plane was explosive-loaded, is it possible that a 'shaped charge' could have been loaded into the nose, so as to penetrate several rings of the Pentagon?

If nonothermite was loaded in the plane, then that might explain total (almost) disintegration. (Impossible to prove, unlike the WTCs, because nothing could be collected by anyone independant.)

BTW I love the Socratic Method of mainly asking questions ... also the scientific method, unless I get upset of course. Then I tend to become irrational. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

However: "The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates.

Think I'll make that my signature.

[gerryhiles]

I think that one thing that impedes us all is not being able to get into a pychopathic mind-set.

"How could someone do that, I could never do that (whatever it is)."

I still feel a little that way, but personal experience (at 67) has led me to realize that some people will stop at nothing to get their own way.

At the 'lower levels' it can be some spouse.

Up the scale a bit and there are serial killers and/or serial abusers (including women).

Up the scale to the 'top' and we have such as Dick Cheney.

Mods please delete this if it is too off-topic.

[rob balsamo]

Got the source, after fossicking around.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...nDrLeggeAug.pdf

The meat comes after about page seven. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

New Legge Paper Continues Dishonest Attack On Pilots For 9/11 Truth
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18088

[gerryhiles]

Got the attack on Pilots for 911 Truth in the original(?) version ... but I still thought it worth posting.

I have read your rebuttals, but I remain inclined to think that it is worth exploring all avenues.

[rob balsamo]

.... but I remain inclined to think that it is worth exploring all avenues.

By all means, please do.

That is the only way to seek truth.

Which is why I provided a link to a rebuttal written by real qualified pilots.

You are free to make up your own mind.

In my opinion based on my experience and consulting with others in our organization, not only does Frank Legge not have a clue regarding aviation, but his whole paper is one huge logical fallacy littered with inaccurate assumptions.

[gerryhiles]

No worries Rob.

I defer to you and the others regarding Legge, sorry if I gave a contrary impression.

I meant "I remain inclined to think that it is worth exploring all avenues" as a general statement.