The Pentagon Attack Arguments List : Fly-over, Or Head-on Impact?, Just two options left : NoC fly-over, or NoC 90° impact.
The Pentagon Attack Arguments List : Fly-over, Or Head-on Impact?, Just two options left : NoC fly-over, or NoC 90° impact.
Feb 15 2011, 02:45 AM
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064
The Pentagon Attack Arguments List : Fly-over, or Head-on impact?
Just two options left : NoC fly-over, or NoC 90° impact.
I first want to address an important note to all readers of this thread, who are genuinely interested in the real, historic truth of the day of 11 September 2001.
I am still not convinced that there is one solid and overruling Pentagon attack theory.
At this date, there are several possible scenarios at hand, which perhaps could be proven the day after tomorrow already, by such convincing, iron-clad evidence, that all left-over traces of doubts are washed away, for all citizens.
I would really welcome the day that we can leave all the internal bickering behind, and step up to the task of bringing real justice to everybody.
As we, the firm believers in the witnesses of a, by CIT unearthed, NoC (North of CITGO) flightpath flown by the Pentagon attack plane, all know by now, we have to live with a very vocal group of opponents, who firmly believe the opposite, South of CITGO officially endorsed flightpath, as envisioned in for example Mike J. Wilson's animated
"911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77" :
We know however, when listening to CIT's earliest interviews, that for example Pentagon police Sgt. Lagasse, bets his life on the fact that he saw the plane fly north of the gas station where he was filling up his gas tank under the northern canopy of that CITGO gas station.
For the shock of your lifetime, in case this is the first time you are going to see this, and you are a firm "officially endorsed south of CITGO" flightpath believer, because you have a natural trust in your representatives chosen also by so many of your fellow citizens, which politicians nearly all do not protest the official 9/11 storyline told by the US government and its institutes to this day, here are the :
"Highlights from interviews with eyewitnesses/Pentagon police officers SGT William Lagasse and SGT Chadwick Brooks" :
And you can never accuse William Lagasse to be a "wacky Truther".
He vehemently defended on several online forums and blogs the officially endorsed Pentagon attack explanations, in the years before he got interviewed by CIT.
It is crystal-clear, that he was really shocked after he realized what the implications were from his genuine eyewitness evidence he laid out before us, heard from his own mouth and enforced even more by his drawing of his observed flight path on an aerial photo of the Pentagon area. He even tried to make it appear in his story as if he witnessed a downed light pole, but later on admitted that he himself, had seen not one light pole being hit in real time. He heard and saw about it, as so many, later in the week and much longer after that in the various news coverages. And read about them in online 911 websites.
But he kept pointing out in this video, on his own flight path drawing, that the plane's body, flew over Route 27 within let's say 30 to 50 meter to the right of the two trees in front of the Heliport landing platform with the huge H painted on its concrete.
He said in the end of the video, that the taxi must have stood also there, if it had been speared through its windshield by a downed light pole, which pole must have been downed then at the point he put his finger on, very near those two trees along Route 27, planted in front of the Heliport landing pad.
We all know by now, that nobody ever saw or photographed downed light poles there.
They saw and photographed 5 light poles cut and landed on the grass or concrete, just after the point where Columbia Pike goes under the overpass of Route 27 over the Pike's last 100 meters.
And that's about 300 meter further southwards, down the road.
And that was also the point where the taxi with the broken windshield and a broken light pole in front of its nose was photographed. Which makes the statement of the taxi driver, and the placement of his taxi, an obvious part of a false flag operation.
Just as his colleague Sgt. Chad Brooks says he saw it fly there, north of the CITGO's northern canopy roof; he stood on a parking lot, beside his car, on the other side of the road which goes along the west side of the CITGO (Joyce Street), which street then, 60 meter further, joins the long curve in Columbia Pike which leads towards the underpass under Route 27, the highway that runs along the western Pentagon lawn, and Columbia Pike that ends then at the western entrance of the Pentagon's huge South Parking lot.
And just as the then enlisted military man Sean Boger, at that time the Pentagon Heliport-tower air-traffic flight controller, saw the plane coming towards him in his control-tower, from a point it was flying low over the Y-shaped antenna at the center of the roof of the last, 8th Wing of the Navy Annex, passing the CITGO station in his angle of view to the right (that's the north side), all the way flying in a slight right bank, correcting that bank just before Route 27 by a slight left bank movement, and impacting the west wall of the Pentagon about 60 meters to the right of his flight control tower windows ( left of his left shoulder). Those Heliport control-tower windows were at level with the west walls' second floor-level windows, about 6 meters/yards above ground.
And just as the four Arlington Cemetery maintenance workers, interviewed first by the Center for Military History (CMH) group, and later also by the CIT team.
They all four indicated a plane coming in a slight right bank towards them at the ANC maintenance buildings, situated on The Arlington National Cemetery grounds, on the other, northern side of the parking lot behind/beside the ANC's buildings boundary fence, which parking entrance is on the long curve in Columbia Pike, which is there swirling around the CITGO gas station. They all four vividly explain that they were afraid that the plane was coming down and crash right on top of them, standing there, in front of those ANC buildings, 200 meters to the north of the CITGO gas station. But the plane right-banked away from them, over the highway called Route 27 a.k.a. Washington Boulevard and impacted the west wall of the Pentagon.
They concluded that from the sound, smoke column rising, and later from the news, they however did not really see an impact, because the ANC buildings and the tree foliage blocked their view on the lower part of that west wall.
CIT: National Security alert :
CIT: The PentaCon. Eyewitnesses Speak, Conspiracy Revealed. (Smoking Gun Version) :
The pure fact that they and many more with them, saw the plane fly on the north side of the CITGO, immediately negates the official SoC theory with all its accompanying "evidence" , since it's aeronautical impossible for a NoC flying plane, to force its way back to the officially endorsed SoC flight path, before hitting pole Nr. 1 in a nearly horizontally leveled-off flight level position.
Thus, that "South of CITGO evidence" was all falsified. The damage path must for at least 60% have been caused by demolition explosions, while the first 40% can come from a head-on, nearly 90° impact of a NoC flying attack plane.
Or all of it was not from AA 77 impacting, which was flying over the west wall roof line, away over the west wall's roof, as the two founding fathers from the CIT team and, so to see, at least a part of the Pilots for Truth, to this day strongly believe.
These Pilots base this on a decoded FDR which has been made public by FOIA requests. They found a too high last written Baro Pressure meter position of the plane into the FDR, for it to be able to dive down and still hit the west wall in a nearly leveled off flight path in the remaining very short time.
Since the NTSB got the FDR from the FBI who said they found it inside the Pentagon in the wreckage path there, in fact only one sane conclusion is left over then, especially when you see the Pilots for 911 Truth their evidence that the FDR shows a too high flying plane.
The FDR must be a falsified FDR. Where at least the last 12 seconds have been altered.
From around the Sheraton Hotel, up till the impact point.
This is the most logical and strongest conclusion, based on a strong believe in those recorded eyewitnesses by the CIT team, which all position the plane in a north of CITGO flight path.
An "inside the Pentagon found" black-box's FDR can never be combined with a plane flying so high in the last 2 seconds, that it must have flown over the roof. Thus, this FDR is false.
And "they" waited to hand that FDR over under a FOIA request until they knew from what point on in the FDR they had to alter the data in such a manner, that it still coincided at first glance, with as many possible eyewitness reports, and still "proved" a south of CITGO approach, which also covered all 5 "downed" light poles. And on top of that, the damage path inside the Pentagon first 3 rings.
They have altered the original last 12 seconds data only. No need to change any data before that.
There are no earlier solid eyewitness reports which could pinpoint the plane's position sufficiently secure to a precise point on a map of the area. The first reliable witness account for the plane's altitude and its position above ground is the woman inside her room in the Sheraton Hotel, who saw through her window the plane closely passing the hotel's south side facade, on its way over the Navy Annex towards the Pentagon. And then Perry Morin, and the military man standing in his room at the east side of the last Annex building, the 8th Wing. He saw it passing over the Annex roof above him, over his right shoulder. His room was at the north end, looking out over the CITGO and towards the Pentagon and Washington center.
The following, second, seemingly possible, however weaker conclusion is always negated and disproved by the first, strongest conclusion, but nevertheless I will write it out for you, so you can contemplate on the only possible logical conclusion when both seemingly possible cases are compared and then show the logical fallacy in this second, wrong, "conclusion" :
ILLOGICAL "CONCLUSION" 2.
Since the FDR must have been inside a plane that was still flying after the artificial "impact point", as this FDR last altitude data shows, then that plane must have flown over the Pentagon.
Because it was impossible to impact the Pentagon from the FDR-reported Baro Altimeter pressure-meter altitudes in the last recorded sub frames, i.o.w. row of portions-of-a-second of the flight path. That data placed the plane much too high above the roof level of the Pentagon.
(Keep in mind now, that CONCLUSION 1, that the FDR is falsified for at least the 12 last seconds, is the first and strongest one. This above second conclusion is however based on a false assumption, namely that the last reported altitude is suddenly right, and NOT falsified as can be concluded from Conclusion 1.).
In that case it should have needed to fall like a brick instantaneous, i.o.w., "warp" from about 200 feet above ground, to 4 feet above ground (which was the last Radio meter reading according to Warren Stutt.)
And thus it seems at first glance logical to conclude that the plane flew away, low over the Pentagon roofs which are about 75 feet high, plus a few small antennas.
However, since the FDR is false, this altitude registration is a total fraud, and thus non-existing, and we can't conclude then after having proved that the FDR is bogus, that the plane must have flown over the Pentagon roof.
Such a line of reasoning is a fine example of a logical fallacy reasoning.
However, a MUCH more logical conclusion is, that the person(s) who were in charge of retracting the data from that FDR, falsified that FDR, and he/they made that huge mistake, and not the FBI which has no expertise in decoding FDR's, by feeding back into the FDR data streams, the right radio-altimeter transceiver data, but the wrong pressure-altimeter data, back into the solid state memory block of that flight data recorder originating from the so-called black box found in the Pentagon. They (or he or she) have thus retracted the original data streams from its memory block, then painstakingly changed the last, say, 12 seconds and switched the data back into the FDR, erasing the original last 12 seconds. There was probably no need to alter all the other, preceding, huge amounts of data.
This kind of falsification is exactly what has happened also in the crashed first Airbus demonstration flight in France, where the company did falsify the recovered FDR, to be able to put the burden of the crash on a "pilot fault", instead of a software fault, which was the real reason the Airbus could not be pulled out of a low fly-by for interested buyers. It glided slowly lower and lower to end up in the trees from the wood at the end of the runway and crashed and burned out.
We found out that the FDR was false, after we found a photo from the just found original 2 "black" boxes (they are orange or red) standing beside the legs of an European FAA man, while the Airbus Company and the authorities always showed different colored and shaped boxes to the public, as being the "original" ones.
As Dennis Cimino pointed out lately, it is very suspicious that the FDR did not show any sudden rudder/foot-paddles movements, or any other input during the so-called physical hi-jack period. And also not after the hi-jacker pilot must have been seated in the pilot seat. All the way to the Pentagon. That's quite unbelievable, that an inexperienced 757 pilot did not use any rudder movements to make that huge circle around the Pentagon, and dived down to Route 27, and leveled off without any foot paddles usage. And no sign of rudder input while the real pilots left their chairs.
According to the Pilots for Truth, all certified pilots from every airline will always keep their eyes on their barometric pressure Primary Altimeter, in other words "The Altimeter" or altitude meter, and discard any always alternating altitude readings of the radio-altimeter during low flights.
And that is the only quite logical behavior.
Since that radio-altimeter can, and will report, many different altitude readings while in a landing approach (low over the ground), since radio signals emitted by the plane, will during any low flown flight path, bounce off a multitude of times from a multitude of objects on the ground, much higher than the ground level. Like buildings, trees, bushes, masts, flocks of birds or road signs. The pilots know by heart, that in the landing phase of their flights, they can not ever rely on that alternating radio-altimeter readings, and risk their life and those from their passengers and crew in believing that those are reliable readings. They know very well they are not.
And a pressure altitude meter will not be influenced by any obstacles on the ground, since it retracts its data solely from the local pressure values while descending. Which differ very slightly compared to different low altitudes, but measurable enough by that pressure-meter's valves, at different low altitudes. And that's why solely that pressure-altitude meter gives the right, reliable altitudes during low above ground, runway approach flights which fly over urban or hilly terrain.
It's the only on-board altitude meter not constantly influenced by objects build above ground level.
Rob Balsamo from Pf911Truth :
""The only way to tell what the RA is measuring from (a building, trees... other objects...) is to check it against your Primary Altimeter as you have a solid reference for this height, which is from sea level. Final MSL height in the "extra" data Warren decoded shows 174' MSL (above sea level), RA shows 4'. This can only mean the RA was bouncing off an object higher than ground level and the MSL height shows too high to hit the Pentagon.""
MSL = Main Sea Level.
RA = Radio Altimeter.
Primary Altimeter = Barometric Altimeter.
Thus, since the NTSB handed-over FDR pressure-meter data itself, show a too high flying plane, that FDR must be either true and the FBI-story telling us that they found it in the Pentagon between the plane wreckage must be false, or this whole FDR, provided after a FOIA procedure, by that same, thus mis leaded FBI, must be false.
After that, the most probable conclusion will be, that a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon, as so many eyewitnesses reported already on the day itself. And many more later on. Thus it could not have flown away over the roofs on its falsified, too high altitude, found in the last seconds of that false FDR.
Simply said, if the FDR is falsified, a plane did not fly over the Pentagon, since the "evidence" for a too high altitude in that false FDR, and thus a fly-over, is falsified.
Thus logic prevails then, and forces us to fall back on the heap of true eyewitnesses, who all reported that a plane impacted the Pentagon's west wall.
The 9/11 planners reason to falsify that FDR, must have been the inconsistency of the last 12 seconds real data on that memory block in the black box they said was found inside the wreckage path in the Pentagon, with the overall scenic picture they had prepared to enforce the direct acceptation of the billions of global media watchers, that a plane flew in a straight and leveled-off line, in those last 12 seconds, from a point in the air beside the Sheraton Hotel, straight to the impact point. And under an angle with the west wall of around 61.5° true magnetic, and "cutting" 5 light poles in the last 300 meter. And the internal damage which was laid/exploded out in an extended line through the center of those 5 light poles.
And when you observe, and listen to, these 13 eyewitnesses while being interviewed by CIT in the above videos, they do not express any sign of lying, on the contrary, they are all firmly convinced of what they saw and describe. A, for some last flight path part, definitive NoC, flight path flown by a commercial airliner.
Thus, when you combine the Pilots for Truth altitude-case with the 13 CIT-witnesses case, the plane can only have impacted on the same spot as filmed already minutes later, but under a totally different angle as told to us by so many officially endorsed US institutions. Under a nearly 90° angle, in other words nearly head-on.
And then it must have ended with its nose cone at the outer wall of the first ring, the E-ring. Which is shown in the ASCE report as the furthest damage-path point when you follow a head-on penetration path.
And it certainly could not have ended at that artificial "exit" hole in the outer wall of the C-ring.
And it definitely did not fly in from a more southernly approach and a much sharper angle, while supposedly downing 5 light poles on the way in.
Like the US government still defends as their interpretation of what happened at the Pentagon on 11 September 2001.
Nevertheless all of the above logic, we still have to convince the until now uninterested part of the populace, plus the interested but mis leaded part, plus the hardcore, mis leaded but still strongly patriotic, SoC defenders who can't bring themselves to mistrust the "State", that they are wrongly believing a lot of their "democratically chosen" representatives in government and military ranks.
We need to convince all these people that the following visual and invisible markers (at first sight, quite convincing to the lay person with little to no time spend on 9/11 issues) which were left behind by the planners of a SoC flight path, are all part of a sophisticated "false flag" operation, which is still unfolding and maintained (and defended) to the present day by said government and military.
Such markers are :
The five light poles being "downed" by the wing-tips of a SoC flying plane.
The "downed" pole nr 1 which "speared through" the taxi's front window.
The generator trailer's front, diesel storage tank roof damage, "caused" by the right wing impacting it, and the damage to the fence in front of it, "done" by the right jet-engine housing.
The FOIA released FDR data file (Flight Data Recorder) "originating" from the black box found inside the AA 77 wreckage path inside the Pentagon, and its accompanying raw CSV file ( Comma Separated Values) and its flight path animation file made by the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board).
However, this animation, and all other NTSB provided 911 animations (UAL 93 also) had a time-specific error in it, and much later on, the NTSB described that animation as simply a "working copy" that was "never used for an official purpose". But why did they put it then in the same FOIA package, specifically meant for public release? To fool the truth-seekers?
The external "impact evidence" of wings and fuselage imprints on the west wall's facade. These imprints can be interpreted as caused either by a SoC, 61.5° angled impact; or a NoC, nearly 90° angled, head-on impact.
The entrance hole in the west wall, big enough to fit the diameter of a Boeing 757.
The "full" internal damage path depicted in the later published ASCE report.
The wreckage parts "found" inside the building's damage path.
The wreckage parts found on the Pentagon's west side grassy lawn, and on Route 27 by witnesses standing or walking around on that highway just after the impact.
The "exit" hole in the C-ring wall, which looks more like an emergency entrance hole, blown inwards from the open AE-Drive side. This hole is explicitly used by myriads of "experts" to show to uninformed readers, that you can draw a line from it, through the C, D and E-ring, and through the middle of those 5 "downed" light poles, to arrive by a too obvious SoC flight path for the attack plane.
However, when you viewed the CIT videos with the 13 eyewitnesses for a NoC flight path, and see how convincing these witnesses explain how they saw a north of CITGO flying plane, then you also believe suddenly, that all of the above markers must be evidence of a false flag operation, on a massive scale.
Feb 15 2011, 02:52 AM
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064
Thus, let us make a :
Comparison of possible 9/11 Pentagon attack scenarios, where all North of CITGO gas station witnesses are accepted as truthful.
1. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/ (All their research explained in their forums.)
2. http://www.thepentacon.com/ (All their research explained in their forums.)
From Ref.3 : Conclusion: "It is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft to cause the directional physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and the Pentagon leading to the C-ring hole approaching from directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former CITGO gas station. The flight paths illustrated by the witnesses would require G forces beyond the physical limitations of any aircraft for it to transition to an approach that lines up with the physical damage. Additionally, a hypothetical least challenging scenario at low speed would require bank angles that are irreconcilable with the physical damage, as well as the witness statements, and require an instantaneously performed roll that is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft.."
I do agree with that conclusion, worded as it is.
It is totally impossible for any wide body plane to make a maneuver which makes it possible to change from a NoC path back again to a SoC path in only a very few seconds (about 2), performing such a task after it passed north of the CITGO gas station. And in such a manner, that it would be lined up with the damage to the five downed light poles, and was again level with the Pentagon lawn, to impact the west wall at the officially declared 42° angle, with its right wing up 3°.
One has to also understand that both wings, moving at the officially declared speed of 460 miles per hour at impact, will be strongly flexed up. Even more in such dense air at ground level.
Normally, at 30,000 feet cruising altitude, every passenger can see the already quite flexed up wing at his side of the plane, if he has a window seat near or on the wing root. And that happens in such thin air we can not breath fast enough to survive, at 10 kilometer / 30,480 feet high in the air.
Essentially, switching from a modest right bank, with an instantaneous flip-over maneuver, to a sudden left bank, while nearly instantaneously leveling off again. In 2 seconds.
I hope the reader does not believe that, and understands that it is impossible.
See the next two conclusive examples for such an impossibility, posted in the Pilots for Truth forums. I think they are both constructed by Rob Balsamo, the founder of that site.
This is what is possible.
This is impossible.
(Animated GIF images courtesy of Pilots for Truth.)
All witnesses described a very smooth right bank when they saw the plane coming to them from over the last Navy Annex, the Nr. 8th building's roof. Not a plane hanging on its right wing tip, as seen in the above second, last animation.
Feb 15 2011, 02:58 AM
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064
So, let's try a somewhat different approach of the Pentagon-attack its anomalies problem :
QUESTION 1 : Is it possible for any fixed-wing aircraft to cause any part of the directional physical damage to the Pentagon's west wall, approaching from directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former CITGO gas station ?
A: Yes, but only the inward wall breaching imprint part, from a NoC, nearly head-on plane impact, photographed during the first 19 minutes, before that part of the E Ring outer west wing wall, plus its following internal first ring-constructions, partially collapsed. Thus only the internal head-on (perpendicular, about 90° angle) partial damage path up to the outer wall of the first ring, the E-ring.
The columns inside that later collapsed E-Ring wedge were probably heavily damaged or obliterated by the incoming plane fuselage's long, strong longitudinal beams; its 2 jet motors their internal titanium, steel and strong aluminum-alloy compression blade's chambers; and its 2 wings and their 2 strong wing-roots and the 2 wing 's strong spars and ribs. And the 3 landing gear's massive steel legs. One in the nose and the two others, one in each left and right wing root end.
Landing gear strut. One of the strongest parts of an airplane, quite heavy too. So, why is it laying on top of a scrap heap? It weights hundreds of kilos. It should be under it. Especially if it were the nose wheel gear strut. The first heavy object to hit the West wall, and logically, suspected to penetrate the furthest inside the Pentagon's wedge rings. It looks as if it was planted there, or moved from another position, where ever that could've been. They say that it was found inside, allegedly very near to that C-Ring "exit" hole in AE-drive.
And don't forget the weight of the left-over jet-fuel in the wing tanks, and the fuselage main tank. The most devastating effect of that fuel weight are caused in the first moments of a plane's impact, after that, the fuel will be dispersed into tiny droplets and a mist of tiny fuel parts. Which will be bounced back for a great part and ignited.
But after the partial collapse 19 minutes later than the impact, there was no physical evidence left of what could have been found in that collapsed part. I do not know of any photographs taken during the cleanup of that collapsed part, and thus we do not have any substantial evidence on film or photo, of what was found in that heap of collapsed rubble.
The engineers who wrote the engineering report issued under the auspices of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), as directed by an Army engineering officer as chair (ASCE 2003), were only first allowed to enter the damaged areas after 3 October 2001, when all the rubble was removed, so they never had a chance to photograph and study anything found in that rubble pile from the collapsed portion and inside the still standing portion.
We could expect the right jet motor parts and the right landing gear parts to be found there.
Never heard anything from those, however, only one landing gear leg allegedly photographed near the C-ring ("exit") hole in the outer wall turned up.
Still smoking "exit" hole, first known photo, no markings painted yet on the walls beside the hole. Big heap of clearly light office trash on the right side in the hole.
One thing nobody ever commented on : when this was an "exit" hole, where the hell are the huge heap of bricks then, which had to be laying under that clearly light office debris?
That was a thick wall, where a lot of bricks fitted in that former wall piece.
That "exit" hole, at an outer wall of the AE-Drive, three Pentagon Rings deeper, wasn't an exit hole, but an entry hole, blown inward probably by a thin plastic wall breaching unit filled with water positioned on the AE-drive road its C-ring wall side, to re-direct nearly all the first explosive force from a thick det-cord inlay, inward. And thus to cause no visible damage to the walls and windows on the other side of the AE-Drive. And that's why most of the bricks must have layed inside. Since we don't see much of them laying outside. Only a few, about 30 to 50 single bricks, and on the wrong side, the left side.
That hole could not have been made by the plane's nose cone, as has been said in the first year after 9/11/2001.
Nose cone. Lightweight, thin streamlined cover of the forward radar disk. Not the dimension to burst the C-ring hole. The first object to be totally shattered when hitting the massive West wall.
Feb 15 2011, 03:04 AM
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064
Detail of brick damage of the C-ring hole, caused by an explosive wall breaching kit. This was an "entrance hole" instead of an "exit hole". Bricks are blasted inwards in small shattered pieces from the outside of the wall in a direction inwards. And not broken outwards; in such a case the bricks would end up as rough square pieces broken out and blasted into the road. Compare this detailed photo of the C-ring hole to my next detail photo of a military wall breaching kit, called "the Gate Crasher".
Gate Crasher wall breaching entry hole. This entry hole made by a military wall breaching kit, filled with water to concentrate the explosive power on the wall itself, looks eerily identical to the so-called Pentagon "exit" hole. Source : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENfxqvKoIaE
This photo is taken from the left side of the hole, suddenly there's a piece of unburned, but crinkled airplane fuselage added on top of the dry wall sheet outside the hole, on the left side. The two round objects which looked like wheel rims on top of the trash heap in the first photo , are gone.
Maintenance road. Note the blind wall on the B-ring side (to the right), opposite of the C-ring wall where the rolling door and the other door were, which also vented a lot of smoke. The B-ring wall at the other side of the C-ring "exit" hole had only windows on the second floor. Thus, a wall breaching back fire blast radius which was aimed 60° downwards from the top down, would not damage the opposite B-ring walls. Only a few windows higher up were broken. Could be from the air pressure wave cascading 60° up, from the road to the lower part of the B-ring up, from C-ring wall back to B-ring wall and back up again, and so on, all the higher floors up until it reached the roof space where the blast wave dissipated in open air.
Wedge 1 overview + damages. Note the three smoke vent openings in the C-ring wall. One smaller door, one wide rolling door, and the "exit" hole. Note also that the C-ring "exit" hole is the psychological natural-acceptance "closing evidence", for the official 61.25° to True North, and 42° to 53° angle to the West-wall damage path. Without it, that path is by far not so precise to construct. The five downed light poles on the other side, outside the West wall "entrance" hole, are exposed as definitely faked by 20 North of CITGO flight path witnesses. The only evidence left is then the inside-damage debris path study from Purdue University, which is on its own no evidence for the official flight path. On the contrary, it shows more of a head-on collision and a penetration of plane parts, no deeper than the opposite wall of the E-ring west wall. And that area was exactly the only area which was probably aided in its collapse, 19 minutes after impact. Thus all eventual plane parts from a head-on collision were covered by debris from the collapse. And could easily have been removed by an insider team much later on, when all of the scene could be handled much better by the right commands from higher up.
C-ring rolling door smoke vent. Probably blasted out from the inside, reached through that small door to the left.
It is important to understand that this "exit" hole fulfilled one purpose only : to enforce the immediate conclusion by the "masses", that you could draw an imaginary line through the 5 "downed" light poles, the internal damage path and that "exit" hole. Thus causing a global mindset that the official southernly angle of attack of 61.5° true magnetic, was thus set in stone.
And it also made it possible to enter the ONI and the accounting offices unseen during the first ordered full retreat from the impact area, caused by a warning that a second plane was nearing Washington DC.
Did they use Flight 93 as an excuse for an (undisturbed by rescue workers) search and retrieve of the objects they so dearly wanted in their possession, or wanted destroyed, like the ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) its super-computer data-tapes and back-up tapes or disks? Or the same objects from the accountants offices computers?
After CIT came with their 13 video-recorded northernly witnesses, who all saw a plane on a totally different last seconds flightpath, the first strong and defensible doubts of the official explanation set in, especially since from now on, everyone who saw these CIT witness videos, knew instantly that those 5 "downed" light poles were an officially endorsed trap to lure citizens into believing the official lies and liars.
And thus the whole picture of a plane impact imprinted on the west wall could also easily been all fake.
Possible right wing imprint on the West wall. Could be a last left bank steering input after the plane approached during a km long flight path all in a slight right bank from over the 8th wing of the Navy Annex, and NoC, towards Route 27. Then changed to a slight left bank to level off with the ground. And the reddish brick wall damage could be from the right jet engine, which tend to break off in a downward direction when the bolts fail, designed that way to not collide with the passenger cabin or the tail fins. Then this engine would topple over when touching the soil, and through its still massive forward momentum part of its directional vectors, been spiraled up and impacting that brick wall a few milliseconds after the front of the wing hit those two columns.
Next question : where is the debris of that engine then propelled to, after it hit but not breached that obviously strong thick brick wall? Why do we not see any of its internal titanium and steel axles and rotors and fan blades laying under that part of the wall? Or its flattened engine core and mantle. Or its very strong and thick wing strut connection.
So, it could just as possible be an imprint from a wall breaching unit. Aided by several small cutting charges.
Anyone interested in the Pentagon attack can directly see for themselves what is basically wrong with the officially depicted last 500 meters flightpath of AA 77.
The official one, based on a clearly falsified last part of the officially offered FDR, depicts a straight line from beside the Sheraton Hotel up to the place of impact at the Pentagon's west wall.
Feb 15 2011, 03:14 AM
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064
All eyewitnesses however, interviewed on 9/11 and later by journalists, and also the ones interviewed in December 2001 by the Center for Military History (CMH) group, and some of these (the ANC ones) later on by CIT, described a relatively slow, right bank in the last thousand meters beginning from above the Navy Annex last building, Wing 8's roof center.
And a few important eyewitnesses who were stuck in their cars in the center HOV lane of Route 27 (Washington Boulevard) also described a tiny little bank back to the left when the plane was passing over Route 27.
The Heliport-control-tower air-traffic controller, Sean Boger, also saw a slight last second, left bank correction.
See for that last left bank f.ex. the report from Christine Peterson and Don Mason, and especially from Penny Elgas, who saw the underside of the right and left wing passing over a few cars in front of her (Christine and Don were in the cars that were right under the Route 27-crossing airplane), which would have been impossible if the plane was still in a right bank. In that case Penny would have seen both upper parts of the wings.
This left bank flight correction over Route 27 at the end of a right banked flightpath, started from over the Navy Annex has to be true, otherwise both a nearly level very low flyover, or an impact causing the impact-imprint of a plane fuselage with a slightly tilted right wing photographed during the first 19 minutes before the E-ring wedge 1 collapsed, could both not have happened.
I find especially the witness report from Penny Elgas from a stunning detailed clarity, especially when reviewed in light of the CIT crew its 13 NoC-witness interviews, years later, leading to CIT's first thesis, the North of CITGO flight path.
And Penny's words fits all CIT witness statements to the last word. They all said that in the end the plane impacted.
For CIT's second thesis, the fly-over thesis, she is however a hard nut to crack, since she described on the day of 9/11 already, very vividly a head-on impact.
Just as Steve Riskus is an equally hard nut to crack too.
He also said on 9/11 that he saw an impact. And with what he additionally said lately to the Italian blogger, it is crystal clear now that he in fact saw a head-on to the west wall aiming plane, crossing Route 27 and then the near 90° angled impact, by a NoC flying and then incoming plane.
Have a look at where Penny Elgas car stood in the HOV lane on photos from her and Christine Peterson talking to each other beside their cars, just to the right, of the two trees in front of the Heliport, taken by Steve Riskus within 1 or 2 minutes after impact.
(You can enlarge his following photo Nr.13 easily if you use a Firefox browser. Just hit the combined CTRL (in EU the Strg key) and "+" key, several times, until you can see the faces and all the other fine details. Its a high definition photograph.) There are 3 more Riskus photo's with cars and persons there...
And others from other photographers, also videos...
Steve Riskus is also a hard NoC witness, and a hard impact witness, see his drawing on a map of his position (red cross) when he saw the plane cross Route 27, and the position of the plane he saw fly over Route 27 (red line), on its way to impact the west wall, head-on :
Click this BIG aerial view image to see the real size of the above photo with Steve's position and the plane crossing Route 27.
In my opinion, Steve draw his red line in a slightly too northernly position. About 50 meter too far north.
Since we now know where the cars stood on Route 27, from Peterson, Mason, Vin Narayanan ("under the plane crossing Route 27") and Elgas ("a few cars behind the plane crossing") and Cissell ("I was about four cars back from where the plane crossed over the highway"). And we know the impact point between columns 13 and 14. And its right wing tip strafed the diesel generator ( says Probst and Mason in the ASCE report), and Sean Boger saw the plane impacting about 60 meter to his towers right.
There are much more witnesses to find who in fact described a NoC flight path, but were all locked by the media to a spot near that first big traffic board, instead of the second one, the one near the Heliport. Or locked to those five bogus "downed" light poles.
The right position for that red line Steve Riskus drew on the photo would be about 50 meters/yards further south/back, and a few of the other witnesses I mentioned, describe vividly how they saw the left wing scrape the concrete of the Heliport, before impacting the west wall.
I think they saw in reality the underside of that left wing hitting that very low small concrete wall from the air-vents, which you can see is damaged in one of the early photos of the fires in the west wall portion of the Pentagon. Some think that air-vent wall was hit by the bottom of the left jet-motor cover.
The below photo montage shows what Steve describes lately to the Italian blogger, on the phone and per email, as ""exactly what he saw when he saw the plane crossing Route 27"", including the huge road sign-board with the green exit signs, and the white HOV lane instructions panel. The 9/11 pair of trees stood further back than those 2 blue arrows indicate. Those 2 new trees were planted years after 9/11/2001.
The above impression from the Italian blogger site has quite a big mistake in it. The two trees on the left side, at 9/11/2001 standing in front of the Heliport pad, here depicted as two blue arrows, were a lot further back, the first tree was 20 meter BEHIND that huge road sign over the road. And not in front of it, as is shown wrongly here.
Thus, we may suppose, that Steve Riskus saw the plane crossing just behind those two 9/11 trees, as is depicted in the above photo, which is much more in synchronization with all other witnesses indications of the last part of the flight path. It flew probably just about 2 meter to the right of the concrete Heliport with its left wing tip, and with that left tip a tad bit tilted down. That's the last correctional slight left bank as described by several 9/11/2001 interviewed eyewitnesses. You can find them in this post and the row of posts of mine below.
And btw, I am very pleased that at last someone interviewed Steve Riskus, and found out what he really saw.
Thanks very much, Italian member Tuttle!
Feb 15 2011, 03:18 AM
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064
This is a better interpretation by Ligon of the real position and flightpath of the plane that Steve Riskus saw flying over Route 27 :
By the way, Frank Probst (ASCE report) was walking on that whitish colored footpath towards the pair of trees, and he said he was near the Heliport (H) when he saw the plane approaching him and the Pentagon. He must have stood somewhere between SP-B and Tree 1.
See for more Steve Riskus info :
Steve Riskus, North Side Flight Path Witness, Interview, images, and flight path drawn.
The witnesses of Route 27: Steve Riskus. A definitive NoC witness.
And Penny Elgas her words thus do not fit at all, a southern plane-approach, since we know now where she in reality was situated in the traffic jam in the HOV lane when the plane flew over that lane, just a few tens of meters south of those 2 trees which grew along Route 27, in front of the Heliport.
Since we didn't knew what her exact position was in the first years after 9/11, in those first years she seemed to be a strong witness for a south of CITGO flight path and was used as such.
But it turns out now, that she is an iron-clad witness for a north of CITGO flight path, in light of her photographed parked car position in the HOV lane. And thus also a NoC, near head-on impact, her car stood nearly perpendicular to the impact hole. Just as the car of James R. Cissell....and the car of Vin Narayanan. And Christine Peterson, and Mason.
Impact from a head-on damage path to that first red line, which is the outer internal wall of the E-Ring. All thin or light plane debris would have been crumbled at impact, caught up by the newly installed stronger-than-steel KEVLAR blankets inside the reinforced walls, which were reinforced with thick steel beams and columns, welded together in a checker board fashion. That was an immense strong defense against just that : an incoming plane. Thus only the heavy plane parts would have survived the initial impact, and tumbled into the first wedge-1 its first floor E-ring.
Feb 15 2011, 03:28 AM
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064
Q1-REF-1. 9/11: THE NORTH FLIGHT PATH: Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible.
Q1-REF-2. TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT TO REF-1.
This 2009 Pilots For 9/11 Truth video and its supplement in which everybody can see for themselves that a NoC flightpath arc between the Navy Annex roof center and the west wall impact spot, with its furthest-out north top spot (called the Sagitta, 'S', for any possible arc), varying from a spot between the Arlington Cemetery boundary masonry wall and a spot above the left side of the north side canopy of the CITGO gas station, is aerodynamically possible, at speeds between 200 to 300 knots, and even 460 knots. And still also comply with the CIT, the Center for Military History (CMH) group, and other eyewitness reports.
The possible right banks calculated by 'Pilots for Truth' and described by all the CIT-interviewed witnesses can vary quite a bit at various speeds and arc radii.
And do not exceed a value of 2 for the G-forces working on the pilots and the airframe.
From a 3° bank at an arc radius of 59,533 feet / 18,146 meter/ca.18 km and a speed of 200 knots.
and a 8° bank at an arc radius of 59,533 feet and a speed of 300 knots,
and a 10° bank at an arc radius of 19,406 feet / 5,915 meter/ca.6 km and a speed of 200 knots,
and a 22° bank at an arc radius of 19,406 feet and a speed of 300 knots.
and a 16° bank at an arc radius of 12,748 feet / 3,886 meter/ca.4 km and a speed of 200 knots,
and a 23° bank at an arc radius of 12,990 feet and a speed of 250 knots,
and a 32° bank at an arc radius of 12,748 feet and a speed of 300 knots.
and a 35° bank at an arc radius of 5,090 feet / 1,551 meter/ca.1.5 km and a speed of 200 knots,
and a 36° bank at an arc radius of 4,974 feet and a speed of 200 knots,
and a 36° bank at an arc radius of 11,010 feet / 3,356 meter/ca.3,3 km and a speed of 300 knots.
and a 43° bank at an arc radius of 12,990 feet and a speed of 250 knots.
and a 17.6° bank at an arc radius of 59,355 feet and a speed of 460 knots.
and a 44° bank at an arc radius of 19,406 feet and a speed of 460 knots.
and a 55.8° bank at an arc radius of 12,748 feet and a speed of 460 knots.
to a 59.6° bank at an arc radius of 11,010 feet and a speed of 460 knots.
530 miles per hour equals 460 knots equals 853 kilometer per hour. That is the official end speed recorded in that bogus FDR released officially by the NTSB.
And that in the thickest air at ground level. Seems unrealistic.
The fan blades from the two turbofan jet motors would be ripped off at that speed in that thick air, caused by extreme vibrations; plus, those turbo fans would need much more time to speed up the whole plane in that thick air, than at an altitude of 30,000 feet in much thinner air.
And not the few seconds the FDR tells us it speedup from a much lower speed.
Someone would perhaps think that they hear turbofans sped up by the pilot at take-off to maximum power, and they are right about that, but they forget that it happens at take-off speed in thick air (160 to 200 miles per hour), and not at 530 miles per hour in the same thick air in a very shallow dive from the Annex to the Pentagon. It's the extra excessive speed which will force the fan blades to fail. At 3x more than take-off speeds, the amount of air molecules hitting the fan blades will be also 3x more, so 3x more resistance has to be overcome by those fan blades spinning at max speed. Which will cause excessive flutter and possible material failure.
See the short example in the Pilotsfor911Truth video in ref. Q1-REF-1, of a model wing tip attached perpendicular to the wing-bottom of a flying laboratory plane, failing in micro seconds when nearing Mach 1 speeds at high altitude.
It first flutters terribly, then fails instantly. It is unsure however, if these fan blades would fail during the amount of seconds of speed-up time to 853 km/hr as is showing in the officially released FDR data.
That 853 km/hr however, exceeds the speed limits for AA 77 set by the manufacturer Boeing, by a factor of 30 %. And these speed limits are in practice found in exactly the kinds of experiments as shown in the aforementioned video part. And that speed limit counts for speeds at cruising altitudes, 30,000 feet / 10 km high, definitely not at ground speeds. I am sure that speed limit would be lowered extensively when ever experimented at ground level flights.
Conclusion : that plane when really flying according to the FDR data, will probably have failed mechanically before it ever reached the Pentagon wall.
Perhaps that was the intention from the beginning? So not one massive spear of 300.000 pounds would hit the wall, but a mist of small particles. And a few heavier engine, wing and fuselage parts.
Let me tell you that I do not buy into that scenario, since all witnesses saw an intact plane hit that wall.
Especially Sean Boger, the Heliport tower experienced air traffic controller, who was 60 meters to the left, beside the impact point in his tower. He described by the way a possible head-on impact.
CIT supposes he hit the floor to protect himself before the actual impact, and I do agree with that, it is a possibility, but not the only one.
Modern human nerve signals research has established that nerve signals need in total about half a second, first to reach the brain, then to get processed and then in reaction, another signal is send back to the muscles to react on the threat to the owner of the brain. The brain however masks that half second reaction time, and let the person think that he instantly reacts on threats, which is thus not true.
The Pilots for Truth provided in their video a compelling demonstration by a very slow flying wide body passenger plane, flying in an about 40° to 60° bank nearly full circle at a clearly slow speed, near stall speed (seen from 15:00 / 19:29 total minutes, in the video). That's a quite steep bank by the way.
But it's also an extremely short arc it's flying. Perhaps a 1000 feet arc. Which means a 2000 feet diameter full circle, i.o.w., that's a 600 meters diameter full circle.
Especially note in this context, that Sean Boger described for the plane he saw, covering the distance between the center of the Navy Annex its ring 8's roof top, and the Pentagon west wall, a much longer amount of seconds then the official explanation wants you to believe. Ten to twelve seconds, he said.
He also described a last slight left bank correction :
Sean Boger : "As he was coming towards me it just seemed like he was tilting the aircraft to his right". That's a tilted left bank.
He was one of the Heliport's control tower's experienced flight controllers on duty in that tower just 60 meters to the left of the impact point on 9/11, and had years of experience in that position observing helicopter landings, much slower b.t.w.than airplane landings.
But he still described a much slower flying plane, covering the distance from above the Navy Annex where he saw it first, coming at him nearly straight to his face, and as he says, impacting the west wall after about 10 to 12 seconds observed flight.
To our eyes, a car driving by at speeds between 200 and 250 km/hr will be described by us as really fast.
In our life-time we do not experience many more objects reasonably near to us (a few hundred meters), at higher speeds.
Only airplanes landing and taking off at airports.
You must really pay attention to this video in Q1-REF-1, to pick up a very important piece of information at the 15:45 to the 15:52 minutes mark.
The narrator says there, that "it is interesting to note that (Roosevelt) Roberts statement lines up perfectly with runway 15 at DCA" (Reagan National Airport).
I made a drawing on a map a few years ago, which showed a possible flight path over the Pentagon roofs towards Runway 15 at Reagan National Airport. But it would land then against regulations, with the wind in the back, a tail-wind. While all other planes were instructed that day to land on the southern end of runway 15, with the wind on the nose, a head-wind.
When you place Roosevelt Roberts on that T-shaped white building at the eastern corner of the South Wall, as CIT believes he was, then he could have described a fly-over plane passing along the boundary of the furthest eastern part of South Parking.
Pentagon + a plane path NoC + CIT's and other witnesses placed on the map, which also indicated a NoC flight path.
When you however look at the few yellow points depicted for that flightpath in the Pilots for Truth video (why not show an arc line, like in all other examples from that video?), it seems that any plane following that strong curved path would have needed to fly all the way from the CITGO gas station up to the west wall and over the Pentagon's roofs and shortly before landing on runway 15 from DCA, in quite a steep bank angle at even a slow speed.
And none of the eyewitnesses saw such a steep bank. They all described a smooth light right bank.
Here is a recent detailed map of the Pentagon area :
I drew three lines on that above map. See the next, altered by me, picture below.
The yellow line confirms with all the CIT witnesses.
The orange line confirms with the CIT fly-over theory, and let the plane land on runway 15, but with the wind in the back, and thus against all normal regulations, especially on that day.
The wind came from the northwest that day.
The red line confirms with the CIT fly-over, and let's the plane fit in with the normal northernly River Approach air lane over the Potomac River alongside the eastern side of Reagan National Airport. It then had to turn around half circle and land on runway 15 against the wind, which was the prevailing mode of approach on 9/11.
In this light it is still interesting to know that 1 minute after the official impact time of 09:38 AM, a 757 landed on Reagan Int. Airport, with a tail number which only differed one digit from AA 77's tail number of N644AA, it had tail number N645. But that number was owned by another air carrier, if I remember that right.
I thought it belonged to a carrier firm owned by Warren Buffet.
Pentagon big-areal-photo of two possible flight paths from the Navy Annex to Runway 15 at DCA.
Yellow =observed by many witnesses,
Orange = possibly observed by Roosevelt Roberts and landing against regulation on the northern tip of the runway,
Red = possible flight path observed by Roosevelt Roberts towards southern end of Runway 15 following flight controller directions as in use on 9/11. Into the normal River Approach air lane over the Potomac River, to not enter restricted flight areas over the White House and others.
In that light, also view the remarks about Roosevelt Roberts seeing a plane flying over the South parking lot, from the 14:39 mark in the Pilots for Truth video in ref. Q1-REF-1.
In my opinion that last piece of the depicted orange arc in that PfT-video lays over the boundary of the far eastern site of the southern parking lot.
And in my opinion Roosevelt could have just as easily described a plane flying in his perspective, low from the Annex roof to a NoC direction and then to the west wall, where he lost sight of it shortly after it crossed Route 27, because the corner of the south wall blocked his line of sight (see his field of view, in between the two thin red lines). That's why he saw no impact, only a smoke column rising over the west wall.
Possible Angle of view of Mr Roosevelt Roberts when seeing an incoming plane. Wide enough angle of view to eventually see either a SoC or a NoC flight path, which are only from about 200 to 50 meters spaced apart, so it is very difficult to describe as a North- or a South- of CITGO gas station flight path by Mr Roberts. He did describe his sighting of a plane as "flying just over the South Parking's lamp posts". That's one possible interpretation of what he would have seen if he had observed the plane when looking to his right. But also if he had observed a plane looking to his left. In both cases the plane would for him have seemed to fly over the South Parking Lot, however over opposite boundaries. One possibility coming towards him from the Navy Annex, the other possibility flying away from him after it crossed over the Pentagon roofs and skimmed over the light poles at the eastern boundary part of South Parking.
Feb 15 2011, 03:38 AM
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064
According to the CIT crew, as I understand by now, they think what Roosevelt described in his first interview with the Center for Military History (CMH) group and later to the CIT crew in two telephone interviews, that he saw a roof crossing, outgoing, fly-over plane, flying on a track leading it over the far eastern boundary of the South Parking Lot and just over the light poles there, possibly on its way to a northernly or a southernly approach to runway 15 of Reagan National Airport, or even on a far further course to another airport somewhere near Washington.
They also think that he stood far further than I placed him, namely near the far eastern corner of the Pentagon's South wall, where also a smaller loading dock is situated, and they seem to think that this is also called Eastern Docks.
I would like to see some hard evidence that that is a viable description of where he stood, because then I have to review my opinion on Roosevelt's 3 interviews.
Now, I still think he stood in the open space between the Western Docks and the Eastern Docks as depicted in my above drawing. And described an incoming plane which he started to see coming from the Navy Annex direction.
Which I derive from about a hundred times carefully listening to all his recorded interviews. I have filled an extensive thread on ATS with my posts, about it.
I guess I'll have to search for it, since you all want links...and it contains typed out lists of the three audio interviews with Roberts. And the three audio file links.
And quite some debate with the CIT crew, who then, could not convince me that Roberts was a viable witness for a fly-over.
Perhaps you guys have gathered some more, convincing additional info about the Roberts account.
The position I place him in, still makes it possible for him to also describe an outgoing fly-over plane, so until we ever get a fourth chance to get an explanation from Roosevelt, I call it an undecided case.
And even when he stood near that far eastern end of the South Wall, he could still have seen the incoming plane, see my green line in the above map, up till the first "C" of the words "Christine Peterson car".
And he did not describe the plane's flight path AFTER he heard an explosion. That description from him regarded the explosion in New York when they showed video of the second plane impacting the WTC North Tower on the TV he was watching when he sat inside the loading bay area.
So, let's see how the parking lots names are mentioned in several official sources. Roberts would have named the lots according to everyday usage at the Pentagon of these lots.
Clockwise from its northern point, the Pentagon’s five facades are the Mall Terrace Entrance facade, the River Terrace Entrance facade, the Concourse Entrance (or Metro Station) facade, the South Parking Entrance facade, and the Heliport facade.
This is The Pentagon Parking Facilities map from the official Pentagon website as of 2011 (see below). As you can see, the South parking covers quite some space to the east also, thus Roosevelt Roberts could have described the plane he saw, flying over the west part, but also over the east part coming from over the roofs, while on its way to land on the northern end of runway 15 from Washington International Airport, a.k.a. Reagan National Airport.
Note that on 9/11 the wind was blowing from the northwest to the southeast, and all landing planes on the airport were directed by the air traffic controllers to land on the other, southern end of that runway, as usual against the wind, to take advantage of the extra wing-lift and additional deceleration force.
Thus my red-colored fly-over flightpath would best fit the circumstances and events on 9/11, when you are convinced of CIT's fly-over thesis.
Feb 15 2011, 03:44 AM
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064
QUESTION 2 : If the plane continued its path over the Pentagon's west wing roofs and disappeared in the distance, flying through the smoke column of an inward directed explosion , how were the resulting inward wall imprints matching an incoming 757 flight profile, in such a scenario, falsified ?
ANSWER : Let's all try to answer that one with any logical explanation which would be widely accepted as an acceptable one.
All the photographs from the first 19 minutes up till 09:57 AM, when the partial collapse took place, show heavy damage caused by an inward source.
Thus, in case of CIT's fly-over, eventual falsified imprints must have been caused by another form of incoming material than a 90 ton Boeing 757, or caused by wall-breaching detonation-cords or, the then just available, quite flat wall-breaching units, glued or screwed on the outside of the west wall, before any plane reached that wall's perimeter. These would have been noticed by still present reconstruction personnel and security guards on their rounds, when not perfectly camouflaged.
Thus we have to accept, following the most logical scenario, another form of wall-breaching, already build inside the outer west wall during construction. That means at least a few of the reconstruction contractor's firm supervisors must have been in with the 9/11 scenario, or they would have found such an anomaly inside their steel beams and Kevlar netting reinforced new walls, during their normal inspections.
Thus, most likely, only night time adjustments to the Pentagon's west wall could have been executed by any kind of pre-9/11 terrorists.
It should be noted that shortly after 9/11, the British based main contractor for the Pentagon's reconstruction, closed all its offices in the USA and all its personnel went back to England.
So they could not easily be interrogated?
Q2-REF-1. Interview by Rob Balsamo from pilotsfor911truth.org, with Flight Data Recorder expert Dennis Cimino about flight AA77.
This is the most false-flag revealing piece of flight 77 information I have seen for years, and should get the attention it needs in all 9/11 truth seeking circles, and far outside of them, especially offered to the US politicians, who we expect to work for the US and global populace. And to all other countries' politicians.
The most striking revelation to me was at first the remarks of Dennis Cimino that he found no data at all in the raw data file or the CVS file from the NTSB FOIA requested FDR files, that indicated which flight number and air carrier that FDR belonged to, which to him was the first thing he noticed when he went over the FDR files with his very experienced eyes. Every FDR he examined in his life, had these markers all over its CVS and FDR raw data file. This one, not a single one....
The next groundbreaking news from his side was the fact that he found more than 35 moments in the raw data file, that electrical power was shut off to the device, and it had to re-initialize again 35 times. These glaring impossibilities had to have been reflected in the CVS file and thus also in the NTSB-animation shipped by the NTSB in the same FOIA requested package. The animation should have shown 35 instances where the plane instantly changed its speed, altitude and position in the air.
It however did not ONE time.
Nothing whatsoever could be found in that CVS file, reflecting 35 re-initializations of the black box power to the solid state memory block. Or any reaction by the "pilots" on the warning signs and noises that accompany everyone of such impossible 35 in-flight events.
This made Dennis Cimino remark in the interview, that this could have only happened if this FDR was from a workbench-fit black box in a laboratory, fed with artificial data during a long time, weeks or months, and that box could thus not belong to the 9/11 AA 77 attack airplane.
[Q2-REF-2. The ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report, Arrogant Deception - Or an Attempt to Expose a Cover-up?
This article looks at The Pentagon Building Performance Report (January 2003) by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
The key conclusion reached is that the Report fails in its attempt to show that the structural damage caused to the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 was caused by a crash by a Boeing 757 aircraft. The main purpose of the Report seems therefore to be to back the official, untruthful story about the events of 9/11. However, part of the inconsistencies are so glaring that an intention of sabotaging the said main purpose cannot be excluded.
Q2-REF-3. Physics911 website : The Missing Wings.
The following quote lists a few angles which do not seem to cope with the ASCE report, and the final speed at impact is also too high, but it offers a compelling reasoning part of this essay for another angle of attack than the official 42° to 45° to the west wall (61.5° true North); or an entirely other plane; or a flyover :
If a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon in the manner described in the ASCE report, the port wing struck a column just to the left of the presumed engine-hole. Since the column did not fail, the wing must have.
Here is why: The aircraft came in at 45 degrees to the wall of Wedge One and the port wing of a Boeing 757 is swept back at an angle of 29 degrees. Thus the angle made by the wing with the support column would have been 45 + 29 = 74 degrees at the moment of impact. Clearly, no other portion of the wing could have been in contact with the Pentagon wall at that moment and the entire weight of the wing, still traveling at 530 miles per hour, would have produced a bending force that was entirely concentrated on the point of contact of the wing with the support column. This would have snapped all three spars instantly. The outboard portion of the wing would then have pivoted into the wall of the building, slamming into it but unable to penetrate it, because now the momentum of the wing, instead of being concentrated at one point, would have been distributed along the length of its contact with the building’s wall.
We can declare that this did not happen, since neither the port wing nor any significant portion of it was found outside the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 18th May 2013 - 01:36 PM|