The Pentagon Attack Arguments List : Fly-over, Or Head-on Impact?, Just two options left : NoC fly-over, or NoC 90° impact. Options

[LaBTop]

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" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8...player_embedded





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" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE...player_embedded



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 :
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

CIT: The PentaCon. Eyewitnesses Speak, Conspiracy Revealed. (Smoking Gun Version) :
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=EYQHPMS8&setlang=en

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.

CONCLUSION 1.
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.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793650

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.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793038

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 :

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793490
""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.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

I am not sure how many times we have to tell you Labtop. The plane could not and did not hit the Pentagon. A plane on the north side flight path cannot hit the light poles or cause the internal/external damage, cannot show up low and level as seen in the gate cam frames, and cannot match the FDR data.

The plane pulled up and flew over:
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/robertpullup.gif)

[LaBTop]

I am not sure how many times we have to tell you Labtop. The plane could not and did not hit the Pentagon. A plane on the north side flight path cannot hit the light poles or cause the internal/external damage, cannot show up low and level as seen in the gate cam frames, and cannot match the FDR data.

The plane pulled up and flew over:
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/robertpullup.gif)

You are obviously for years now already, caught up in an endless loop of severe 'logical fallacy' arguments. And you proved it again to me with your above words.
Try to understand the logic in my next words, answering your 4 arguments :

Aldo : I am not sure how many times we have to tell you LaBTop.
(1) The plane could not and did not hit the Pentagon.
LT : It could easily, especially since it flew much slower than they want us to let believe with FALSE radar data and an also FALSE FDR. I believe the witnesses, who describe much slower speeds.
(2a) A plane on the north side flight path cannot hit the light poles or
LT : Those 5 poles were also FALSE flags. That plane never hit them.
(2b) cause the internal/external damage,
LT : Yep, not most of it, but it did cause the 90° angle damage, and no more.
The much longer rest of the damage inside, to the left of the expansion joint, was done by explosions and is also FALSE.
(3) cannot show up low and level as seen in the gate cam frames,
LT: Huh? Those 2 gate cam videos were proven also FALSE, long ago. You believe them again?
(4) and cannot match the FDR data.
LT : that FDR is just proven also FALSE, by the Pilots and Dennis Cimino, a FDR specialist.
The only problem I see with Dennis, he probably only saw the CVS files from Warren Stutt, and Warren left out a load of data and data descriptions, also the ones Dennis complained about as missing. Warren just had not included them.
That's why Dennis should decode the raw data file from that FDR, with real AA software.
(5) The plane pulled up and flew over:""
LT : see my rebuttal a bit lower. (End of Aldo's words and my short rebuttals.)


A more detailed explanation.
(1). That plane COULD hit the Pentagon. No problem.
Read my posts #1 to #6. Better, re-read all my posts and links up to this one, a few times. Note especially my altered big drawing out of the ASCE report, where I superimposed an, on-scale with that drawing, 757-200, which wingtips exactly covers the space between all the red, severed columns, and its nose-cone hits between column 13 and 14 under an 90° angle. And stops near the second wall, the E-ring internal wall. Its fuselage totally crumbled.

(2a). A NoC plane of course could NOT hit any of those STAGED five downed light poles.
They were faked as seemingly downed by a FALSE SoC plane, which YOU and CRAIG themselves proved being FALSE, by giving us all the NoC witness videos.

(2b). And because the simple fact of a NoC flying plane, impacting under a 90° angle, does in fact negate that a NoC plane could ever cause the greatest part (the bulk) of the internal damage, specifically NOT the northernly/to-the-left stretched out internal part, up to the FAKE "exit" hole at C-ring, means however that it could, and DID cause ONLY the damage field covering the space leading from the expansion joint from where the building started to collapsed at 19 minutes after impact, towards the right/south last severed column.
And did thus also cause the external damage like the imprints on the wall. And the plane's body fits easily in that 14 foot hole we saw on the first photos. The rest of the damage was then made by wings and engines. Remember, there is no PUBLIC footage from the cleaning operation in the collapsed wedge 1, during the first month, until the engineers from the ASCE team were allowed on-site on 3 October ! And look how perfectly the right wing root part fits to the same angle of damage in front of that wing root, drawn inside that later collapsed part.

(3) Ahem, those gate cam frames are proved to be FAKE a long time ago, and now you bring them back up as being genuine? For the sake of your argument? Those frames are all FAKE.

(4) Ahem, Dennis Cimino, Rob Balsamo and colleagues, just proved to me and everyone else, that the FDR send to the FOIA applicant is blatantly FALSE. So why, again for the sake of your argument, do you pull that FDR up as proof that the plane could not impact?
I have tried to help you with your 13 NoC witnesses, by pulling at least 5 more obvious NoC witnesses out of the SoC woodwork, where they were put in by the media and Trusters.
WHY searching for those new witnesses?
Because the FDR is blatantly false, thus we are back at WITNESS reports.
And in my opinion, the witness reports published from the day itself, or shortly after, are the most reliable in the eyes of the public, and also for a possible court case, with judge and jury.
Those early interviews were followed by interviews even years later of the same witnesses, who give then some more details, from which we can conclude that they are NoC witnesses.

(5). You used a short video of Robert Turcios.
He stood under the southern canopy of the CITGO gas station when he heard and saw the plane, coming down along a slightly downwards flight path, from above the Annex (a 30 meters high building standing on a 70 meters/yards high hill above the Pentagon basin) towards Route 27 with all its road signs and light poles.
So it went from 110 meters high, downwards to about 40 meters height, then leveled off to fly over the light poles and road sign near the Heliport, without hitting them.

Of course it had to pull up a little, about 100 meters before Route 27, to not drill itself into the grass in front of Route 27. And that is what Robert saw happening, a plane leveling off, out of a swallow dive. Since he stood behind it when it did that, he had a perfect view to see that leveling as a dipping of the plane's tail and tail fins. Don't forget, the plane was at least still 200 feet/60 meters above him, so he looked at it from under it. And then it looks much more eventually, as an ascending move, which it was not. But that is what he tries to express with his left hand.

Btw, he stood near the newspaper stand on the southern ground of the CITGO, and had the highest part of the heightened embankment in front of him, which has blocked his view of the impact.
In your video part above, he stands on the now grassy embankment, looking down on the road behind the CITGO. On the day of 9/11, that embankment was still sandy, since its construction was just finished there.
So it pulled up from a swallow dive, but it probably did not fly-over but impacted.
Which, in both cases, Robert could not have seen, because of the embankment blocking his view on the last few hundred meters/yards flight path.


We should better concentrate on the question, what logical reason there was to let that plane impact under about an 90° angle, while in the mean time have artificially downed light poles already laying down, and simultaneously with an impact, detonate a lot of charges to construct that strange damage path inside the Pentagon

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Aldo : I am not sure how many times we have to tell you LaBTop.
(1) The plane could not and did not hit the Pentagon.
LT : It could easily, especially since it flew much slower than they want us to let believe with FALSE radar data and an also FALSE FDR. I believe the witnesses, who describe much slower speeds.

[...]

A more detailed explanation.
(1). That plane COULD hit the Pentagon. No problem.
Read my posts #1 to #6. Better, re-read all my posts and links up to this one, a few times. Note especially my altered big drawing out of the ASCE report, where I superimposed an, on-scale with that drawing, 757-200, which wingtips exactly covers the space between all the red, severed columns, and its nose-cone hits between column 13 and 14 under an 90° angle. And stops near the second wall, the E-ring internal wall. Its fuselage totally crumbled.

Would you like to weigh in, Rob or any of the other aviation professionals? With the NoC flight path from the untouched light poles/highway sign/trees-with or without pull up, the spools, the turned trailer, the internal directional damage, Columns 15, 16, and 17 uprooted at the base, Column 14AA, lack of crater or foundation damage, the alleged nose section of plane reportedly at C-ring hole--- can the plane impact???

[onesliceshort]

Would you like to weigh in, Rob or any of the other aviation professionals? With the NoC flight path from the untouched light poles/highway sign/trees-with or without pull up, the spools, the turned trailer, the internal directional damage, Columns 15, 16, and 17 uprooted at the base, Column 14AA, lack of crater or foundation damage, the alleged nose section of plane reportedly at C-ring hole--- can the plane impact???

Let's not forget the necessary Star Trekesque descent after passing "over the poles" (as per Chris Sarns) to squeeze its 50 ft agl ass into the first floor and the fact that Wallace, Skipper and Boger weren't blown to smithereens by any explosives to "ease penetration" (vaseline/KY jelly may be the road to explore?).

Or the fact that columns within 40-60 feet were untouched/still standing on the NOC trajectory, etc etc..

[LaBTop]

Let me first express again something very important regarding this discussion.
I, and so to see quite a lot of you, expect Dennis Cimoni to be able to show us evidence that the FOIA released FDR is bogus.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793591


I for one, am extremely interested in those more than 35 times that the electrical power was shut off to the whole black box, and then later switched on again.
Dennis says it's a sure sign that that FDR came from a workbench session.
If I can see those 35 events with my own eyes, I am convinced that that AA 77 FDR is proven false. Now I am 99% sure of it.
Btw, at the moment that is shown to us, for me, and I suppose for you all too, the whole discussion with Warren Stutt becomes directly redundant.


So, do not get trapped in the age-old adagio of starting to base your arguments on a nearly sure falsified FDR combined with all NoC eyewitnesses.

The only thing that you hope to arrive at when you concentrate on that false FDR, is hopefully to find and show enough evidence that the whole damn FDR is 100% false.
And in my opinion, we are already as far as to name it that way.

And thus, do not make the huge mistake to connect that ever growing list of rock-hard NoC eyewitness evidence, with a false FDR, handed over by the very entity we strongly suspect of tampering on a huge scale with all the 9/11 evidence.

We are back at phase 1, the REAL eyewitnesses, of which there are now a few very important new ones (Steve Riskus, Christine Peterson, Penny Elgas, Vin Narayanan and Don Mason, even Frank Probst) who vividly described where the plane really flew, and where it hit. See my posts about them on page 1.

It flew much slower than shown in that false FDR, in reality it was passing over Route 27 from a NoC path at a near 90° angle.
Thus, the whole calculations episode of a very slight downward descent arc from about 120 feet high (10 feet above Annex roof + 70 feet hill) minus 40 feet (10 feet above light poles + halfway traffic sign, all opposite of the Heliport) with a crazy high speed flown at 30% above safety margins of a 757-223 in dense air at near ground level (instead of 33,000 feet at cruising speed where most margins are tested) has become redundant.

Do the same calculations again, but now with near stall speeds (f.ex. 260 km/hr) with a plane flying with no flaps out, in a clean configuration. As I said before, to a perpendicular witness on Route 27 or 395, that plane passing him / her will look as if it flew still very fast, faster than any standard car drives.
Have you ever stood on a German Raststätte Parkplatz, and looked at the Ferrari's, Porsche's, BMW's, Audi and Mercedes fastest models whooshing past you on the adjacent Autobahn with near maximum speeds of about 240 km/hr? That looks mighty fast, and you have difficulty to follow that car, so fast will it speed past the slower cars who only drive cruising speeds of 160 to 180 km/hr.
In that new calculation case, we still have the choice between 2 mm up, or 2mm down movement of the steering column, so a fly-over, or an impact at the slab between the first and second floor.
And all witnesses near to the plane said it impacted exactly where we saw the damage in the first 19 minutes photos.

Just ask yourself, if in reality, a slow flying plane (Boger, Middleton and a few others) needed between 10 to 12 to even 15 seconds to cover the distance between the last Annex building Nr 8 its roof line, and these columns 13 and 14 in the west wall, and some of you seem to firmly believe that it was possible to let that same plane perform a f.ex. 4 feet high fly-over over the roof line (not the wall itself, that's lower) of the west wall, which means a slight pull of the pilots steering column, why it would be such an outlandish thought to think that instead, the steering column was pushed down slightly, and the fuselage's main center beam of the plane hit at 2/3 of the height of that 14 feet plane's body hole in the Pentagon's west wall's E-ring?

And so to hear from most real witnesses, the plane accelerated only in the last 1 or 2 seconds.

Why was the 60.25° to 61.5° damage path prepared in advance, by laying out all the explosives inside the building, and the 5 light poles cut in advance?
This question holds ground for both a fly-over event, or a near 90° impact.

Over at A.T.S. I have said it from the beginning, all the missing trillions of black budget funds, which their auditors worked on already for a few years, these auditors were killed, and all the NAVY Intelligence ONI office personnel and the others present there, ordered there for a meeting later on with Rumsfeld. Even a general was killed. The back-up files stacked at WTC 7 were also gone after the collapse there. It was mentioned in my first post at A.T.S in 2005. (before that, I was active at other forums and sites. Already from the Kennedy murders on, before the Internet came up. And the Oklahoma City bombing and the first WTC bombing)


Something strange is going on worldwide, the masses seem to awake and shake of their fears. CIA anyone?
Be aware, America's power grabbers and puppeteers, it could unexpectedly backlash on your turf and in your army too.
There were a bit too many false flag wars, started by the USA. We are in the middle of the last one.
It's getting too damn obvious, who's getting us in all these troubles since 1900.