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.
Mar 2 2011, 04:07 AM
Group: Valued Member
Joined: 28-January 10
Member No.: 4,870
A NOC approach disallows impact with the pentagon because in order to clear the obstacles along that approach path the plane MUST either:
1. Come in at a high angle in a steep dive and execute a very high G nearly instantaneous pull up prior to the facade and avoid damaging the foundation, which is totally inconsistent with eye witness reports and also aerodynamically impossible, in my opinion, even at lowest possible speeds. I will defer to the Pilots here if they think that I am wrong on that point. In my opinion there simply is not enough room or time to pull up no matter how you slice it in this scenario. This scenario has the added problem of totally contradicting the NOC witnesses who did NOT report the plane to be that high up or in a steep dive or to have pulled up violently just prior to impact. This scenario can therefore be ruled out.
2. Come in at a shallow downward angle consistent with eye witness reports, execute a violent and nearly instantaneous decent and high G pull up (in less then 1 second) just after clearing the obstacles and strike low and level without damaging the pentagon foundation. This scenario is totally impossible aerodynamically, in my opinion, however it does conflict less then scenario #1 does with the eye witness accounts of the planes behavior prior to reaching the obstacles. The fact that this scenario is aerodynamically impossible rules it out as viable.
Very simply put CIT is correct when they say that NOC proves the plane did not strike the pentagon. Flyover is the only remaining logical conclusion. Game, set, match, the argument is over regardless of how many people realize it or not.
On a personal note I can tell you that LaBtop's scenario of a possible NOC impact much like Chris Sarns NOC impact scenario is NOT in fact "possible" at all and can be logically ruled out. Unless LaBtop or Sarns can prove that either scenario #1 or #2 described above are physically possible, their NOC impact theories must be rejected as both aerodynamically impossible and as totally inconsistent with the eye witness reports. In my view they MUST show that this logic and conclusion is incorrect before any of us entertain any further discussion of their NOC impact theories. Their scenarios have been debunked and therefore the burden of proof now falls on them to counter those arguments. We do not need to counter theirs any further unless and until they can show our arguments to be in error.
This post has been edited by Atomicbomb: Mar 2 2011, 04:09 AM
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 18th June 2013 - 01:37 AM|