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 7 2011, 06:32 AM
Group: Active Forum Pilot
Joined: 28-November 10
Member No.: 5,467
I hope that I have not offended protocol, with this post, but I was wanting to be able to address my comment directly to you.
I have read your Pentagon Attack Arguments List : Fly-over, Or Head -on Impact a number of times now.
May I say you have presented a very good --argument--.
It does seem though, that even though you say you have not been able to come to any definite decision as to what happened, you have nonetheless stated in your argument that you discount certain considertions, that is if I am reading what I think you said correctly.
I could not agree with you more, that it will be a wonderful day when all involved in this consideration are able to have some consensus.
The main difficulty in this occuring at the moment appears to be the argument of --north or south approach, and from what I gain from your argument this is your opinion to.
There seems little doubt to me from all the things you so capably argued that there is strong evidence to an aircraft flying north of the petrol station, and nothing to support it stiking anything before the building if it ever did, which on the many other points of argument based on very sound reasoning, relating to --flight data recording-- seems very unlikely, besides the decided lack of aircraft debris, of the type and amount which would be expected from a Boeing 757.
(For it to be suggested that it just vapourised --as some have done, defies any sense of --commom sense-- regardless of what speed it might want to be claimed the aircraft was doing at the point of impact-- not very often I will go this far in an argument --but to me it seems absolute 'hogwash', the one bit of American language I have command over!!)
So what left all the debris around the outside of the building?
Something had to have.
Ok --poles could have been cut down as some have suggested.
But there was a vast amount of debris, quite aside from the 'shiny' bits of aluminium, which I would think we all have entitlement to have question over.
The fire and damge along the front of the building --north of the considered impact point had to be caused by something.
If it was something that hit the building square on --it would be reasonable to think that resulting damage and debris would be fairly equal each side of the impact point.
the photographic evidence most certainly does not support that.
It does not appear there is anything at all to support that something came from the direction further north than the --northen fly over path, and the damage and debris most certaily does not, in the photographs.
This leaves two possibility.
(1) Something else other than the aircraft that seems to have flown over came from the same direction as the aircraft that flew over and sruck the building.
The argument above argues against this I feel.
(2) Something came from the southern direction, but not necessarily what the official opinion would have us believe.
Something smaller than a Boeing 757, not constructed with as much aluminium, and without two massive engines.
With all respect to you, I feel that the southern possibility should not be disgarded from overall consideration.
Regards and admiration.
Mar 7 2011, 04:18 PM
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064
First, a refreshing feeling from my side of the discussion, for all the mutual respect shown by all the posters arguments after my last post Nr. 44.
Now I will post quite some lengthy posts, which in my opinion, will put the final lid on the Roosevelt Roberts usage, as a fly-over witness.
He is definitely not.
This photo could be taken early enough (no collapse yet) that we could make out the brands of cars on the northbound lanes.
Does anybody (onesliceshort?) have a high-res version of this one, where we could identify cars and people better than in this one :
Daryl Donley photos on the web :
Just Google "Daryl Donley photo" and you can choose from a hundred or so, which one you can or will use.
All Steve Riskus photos taken at the Pentagon :
By the way, I do not subscribe to the hostile attitude towards Steve Riskus by STEVENWARRAN.
I think I was the first to point at the fact, before he posted it in his blog, that Steve registered his own web site where he posted his 9/11 Pentagon photos at, the day before 9/11. Let's call it a coincidence.
And I also pointed at the fact that the numbering of his photos are lacking a few, that could be due to a quick-erase attitude towards uninteresting or mishapped photos.
But I like this link, because he has all of the Steve Riskus photos in one page, online and clickable to get to an high-res enlarged one.
If anybody (onesliceshort?) knows of more photos of Route 27 taken during the first 5 minutes or so, after the plane impacted, where we can find better photos of witnesses and their cars in, please post them here, or PM me here, or at A.T.S., to provide me with links or other sources, like newspapers, etcetera.
And again, someone should contact Tony Terronez and ask him for his lots of Route 27 photos, despite that he said he started to take photos after the first cars drove on again or turned off to an exit ramp.
He could hold the famous lost picture that could prove without doubt, a few witnesses to be NoC witnesses, based on their cars position on Route 27.
Or to be SoC witnesses......which I do not believe will happen soon, if ever.
(Please wait with posting in this thread now, for at least an hour, because I will post quite some more info now, and I would like to have it in one long line.)
Mar 7 2011, 04:34 PM
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064
Paranoia, you have to look in the further right side of that Steve Riskus photo nr 13, it could be that the woman in the dark blue dress, with a white T-shirt under it, could be Penny. And her white Dodge Neon could be the second car to her left, half hidden behind that dark red van.
Honestly said however, that woman looks a tad bit too sturdy, so the best candidate would be the much smaller woman speaking to someone inside that convertible with the black top (perhaps a BMW Z3?). Penny looks like quite a small woman in the photo I posted, where she handed over that fiber glass wreckage piece she picked up from the ground beneath her passenger front door on 9/11, to the Museum of American History director. And if that little woman at the convertible is really Penny Elgas with her own hair color instead of painted black, she is doing what she told us in her witness account, trying to calm down a young woman in the car in front of her. It is also about the spot where you expect Penny to be, related to where Christine Peterson is standing, who clearly said she stood still in traffic ""in front of the Helipad at the Pentagon"" when the plane came nearly over her car. And so to see she's right there, standing on that concrete divider, in front of the Helipad at the Pentagon.
And as Penny said, she was a few cars behind the cars the plane flew over. And Christine said the plane flew over her car, she could read the numbers painted under the wing.
Mar 7 2011, 04:48 PM
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064
Penny and Christine their Pentagon Helipad view at 9/11, but a 2009 street view from Google Earth has been used by me :
Paranoia, this is a January 14, 2009 Christine Peterson post by me :
Christine Peterson 10/18/01 [C]
Title : At a complete stop on the road in front of the Helipad at the Pentagon.
"" I was at a complete stop on the road in front of the Helipad at the Pentagon; what I had thought would be a shortcut was as slow as the other routes I had taken that morning. I looked idly out my window to the left -- and saw a plane flying so low I said, “holy cow, that plane is going to hit my car” (not my actual words). The car shook as the plane flew over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing. And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire. ""
Source: NAU Alumni Association website.Tragedy at the Pentagon -- An Eyewitness Report.
Paranoia, I can not prove it 100%, yet, but I am quite sure that the African-American tall lady on the HOV concrete is Christine Peterson. I will do a search at A.T.S for my post with the diploma ceremony photo of her in it, when she was younger than 28 years old and graduated from NAU (Northern Arizona University). But I am quite sure also, that that image-link will be blocked now, and now gives access only, for Alumni members of her former University. That link is in the above one, but redirects to the Alumni log-in page.
(Found it back via the WayBackMachine). I'll see if I can find it back, that inauguration photo.
I remember well, how tall she was in that photo, with the same hair. She was standing, with that funny little black hat with a dangling tassel on it, and wearing a red robe, as usual for a University diploma ceremony in the US. With her rolled up diploma in her hand beside/behind a cathedra.
If you have connections to someone who can get into the US vehicle registration data-base, he/she can find what cars were in possession of the named eyewitnesses on 9/11.
This still is no conclusive evidence that the car they drove on 9/11 was their own car. They could have driven that day in a leased, hired, company or lent from family or friends -car.
The Insurance records data-base can also give you, or a befriended/hired private investigator with access to these sources, those private details. You have to be careful when trying to find these things out, it's probably a tad bit illegal under US law, because of laws protecting the individual's privacy.
This is one example of the damaged cars by plane shrapnel, or masonry or concrete building debris, near the Pentagon. A Mercury :
It does not look as another car hit it, too high i.m.o., or does it?
There must have been damage reports to their Insurance agents, of eyewitnesses on Route 27, since we know from Tony Terronez, that a few cars around him had broken rear windows from plane parts or concrete chunks breaking them.
Search for the myriad of photographs he said he took after the traffic jam started to dissolve in front of the Heliport. He took them from the south bound entry ramp side of Route 27, where he parked his car, so all cars should be visible in the HOV lane and in the all day freely accessible northernly lanes.
In Europe, for such an investigation, you go find a private investigator who worked lately in the police force, before he became his own boss, thus still has all his buddies working there, and can thus look in the police its country wide accident data bases.
An Insurance agent can search his country wide data base for Route 27 (Washington Boulevard) car damage reports from September 11, 2011.
Mar 7 2011, 05:20 PM
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064
Rob, I really don't see the impossibilities between your and my G-load proposals.
The only glaring difference I see, is that all witnesses I referred to, all saw a plane skimming just over the light poles opposite of the Heliport without toppling them, and then impact. The CIT witnesses also indicated the same.
So, let's forget for a moment about how on earth that plane arrived there; the many witnesses I introduced prove that it in fact did so, and in a near level configuration. So I don't see the need to get into a pissing contest again with myriads of so called mathematicians, who have no real experience with flying wide body passenger planes.
It arrived just above Route 27, that's a fact which is corroborated by many of our witnesses.
They then saw a plane descending from its 40 feet or so position over the road and just above the light poles in front of the Heliport, towards an impact point of the nose cone at about 10 feet high (see the drawing of the plane's nose touching the wall at exactly 10 feet high, in CIT's FAQ page I linked to already), on the first floor's concrete slab. That's a 30 feet descend (9 meter) over about 330 feet (100 meters).
And the earth G-force field will aid in such a descending impulse with an extra norm pull of 1 G.
You are proposing a certain possible negative G-load on the airframe when the plane however ascended, i.o.w. when it pulled-up a tiny tidbit from the moment it had to cross Route 27 and had to clear the (later found undamaged) light poles in front of the Heliport. It had to overcome the pull of 1 G from the earth force field in case of an ascending impulse from that point on towards the 77 feet high Pentagon west wall.
Over the same distance, 330 feet (100 meters) and about the same height, but now upwards, a 37 to 40 feet ascend in case of a fly-over over the 77 feet high Pentagon.
And I am proposing a certain possible positive G-load on the airframe when the plane descended, following more than 20 eyewitness reports, who all saw a plane impact, which has to have been a tiny tidbit pull-down, i.o.w. a push down on the steering column.
A descend, instead of an ascend.
Seen as forces which can break an airframe, it does not matter much if they are positive or negative, in both cases, if too high, the plane will brake up in flight.
However, in a descending move, the earth gravity of 1 G will aid in descending, so less push on the stick is needed, in my opinion. And thus 1 G less wear on the airframe than in an ascend.
And in an ascending move, you have to use more force to cover the same height-difference of 40 feet.
In fact it's only a difference in positive or negative G-load, but both adding the same load on the airframe. Only in a different direction. Up, or down.
So, can we conclude, that if you say that that plane could not have impacted, that it could also not have flown over because of the SAME too high strain on the air frame?
Or is the fly-over theory in favor here, since we suppose the plane cleared the light poles at a height of 40 feet, the Pentagon roofs had to be cleared at about 80 feet (west wall height 77 feet), that's a necessary ascend of 40 feet over a space of 330 feet (the width of the lawn there, 100 meter).
But, that's about the same descend the plane had to cover to hit the second floor slab at about 10 feet high, in fact even 10 feet less, since 40 - 10 = 30 feet to descend over a 330 feet (100 meters) space.
Of course, if we start a pissing contest of exactly how high the plane flew over Route 27, and we upgrade that height to f.ex. 50 feet, your fly-over theory favors a tidbit, it gets 10 feet off its ascend, and my 90° impact theory gets 10 feet added. Then it's 30-40 instead of 40-30. Big deal.
So, in my opinion, we can save ourselves a lot of unnecessary calculations for a possible flight path from the Navy Annex to Route 27, because I think we agree on the same proposal, that the plane arrived at Route 27 and cleared Route 27 at about 40 feet high in a near level flight, according to a LOT of people I linked to on pages 1 and 2 and 3, who were ALSO actually there.
Specifically those 40 feet high, when looking at Pier's nice photo compilation of that big 757 plane crossing Route 27's south bound lanes, as actually seen by Steve Riskus while he was driving just north of the Pentagon, alongside the farest eastern Arlington National Cemetary grounds, towards the south.
If he had had a camera at hand and photographed it, it would have looked exactly as what Pier depicted there, Steve Riskus said in an email exchange with Pier.
Steve seems by the way more than willing to aid us in the NoC theory.
That's a damn low flying plane, however Steve Riskus says it is EXACTLY what he saw on 9/11/2001 :
Now, if you want to know how big that plane would have seemed to him, if it really had crossed Route 27 in an angled flight, and just in front of that second, much further away, and wider traffic board spanning all the lanes of Route 27, just draw 2 lines, one from the nose and one from the tails top end, towards that second traffic board you see in the far distance, under the first less wide one in the foreground, with the three signs hanging on it.
You will quickly find out that it would have looked to Steve as being about 1/3 the length of the plane Pier draw in this above photo.
AND, it would be deformed (smaller in length) since it is said to have flown over that road under an angle of 60.25° true north, the SoC attack angle.
AND, it would be flying just above that faraway second board, or probably mostly hidden BEHIND this foreground less wide but now bigger looking board you see Steve's plane depicted above.
That is a very distinct difference in overall length of the plane's body, as depicted in this NoC scenario, or in a much further away SoC scenario. So, Steve would have never admitted what Pier drew, was Steve's actual plane sighting on 9/11.
If you want, i can construct a second photo, with both the SoC plane scaled down to 1/3 of this NoC (by Pier) depicted 757 in it.
But I prefer that Pier does it, I do not want to infringe on his copy right on that excellent photo-montage.
When Pier will be so kind to show us the very different angle of the plane over Route 27 and it also being much further away, you will instantly understand that Steve has definitely seen the NoC flightpath, when he is so sure that the above photo is exactly what he saw passing about 30 meters in front of him on 9/11, and thus also crossing from his point of view, that concrete Helipad in the Pentagon lawn. And from his position, he also had a front seat for viewing an impact. Now, 2011, there is a high wall to the left, but on 9/11 there was no such wall, only the 80 cm high concrete HOV lane dividers. And the two trees in front of the Helipad, behind the left side of the first traffic board in the foreground.
Steve must have seen it impact the west wall. And he actually also said so.
By the way, this longitudinal angle that Pier drew in that photo, is also the angle of attack to the ground, that I think the plane followed on this last part of its flight. A very shallow nose down attitude.
I also expect a homing-in device to have been installed right on the floor slab between the first and second floor, to be followed by the remote controlled soft-and hardware installed in these 9/11 planes under a preplanned angle of attack, therefor excluding any possible human mistakes.
There was no human steering that plane on its last spiral down, is my opinion.
That part of the flight was much too precise, as seen also by the flight controllers at Dulles Airport, and the other radar and flight controllers following AA 77 on its last descend.
Oh, and forget that false FDR and the false RADES data. Just go by the witness accounts, the more you delve in most of them, the more it seems most of them tried to tell the real truth, but their accounts were weeded out of too precise positionings and details, at the editors level of the main newspapers and TV networks. Or the Army editors actual present on 9/11 in all main Networks editing rooms...
The first floor is in Europe the one above the ground floor, in the US the first floor is the "ground floor". Perhaps that's what confuses a few posters here, who think the plane could have never impacted on that first floor's slab.
I think it was exactly planned like that, in such a manner, that the plane's longitudinal heavy floor beams which are situated at around the lowest 1/3 height of the fuselage, would impact exactly on that floor slab, or just under it, so the plane would be slit in two along the underside of the cabin floor.
So, the luggage area would be start slicing under that floor slab, and the much less sturdy cabin area would be crumbled up at impact on that floor slab. The cabin part of a plane has by far not such sturdy beams as the luggage area.
Plus, the landing gear struts, the jet engines and the wing roots and wings are all in the same plain, that lowest 1/3 luggage area.
So all the really heavy plane parts would impact under the first floor slab. And that's where all the probable pre-planned attack targets were, on the first floor.
The ARMY auditors checking the "lost" trillions right behind the E-ring facade, the ONI and the big NAVAL Intelligence offices in the C and D-ring, see one of my posted Pentagon maps with those names and offices in it.
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 22nd May 2013 - 03:19 AM|