It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

page: 24
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:42 PM
a reply to: Salander

Very rarely have you seen me rely on "government" or "media". I take great delight in showing how "truth" theories do not match up with the evidence or reality.

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:53 PM
a reply to: facedye

Oh, excuse me, it was Flight 77 that Cheney's shoot down order applied to, according to Mineta..

MR. ROEMER: Nice to see you, Mr. Secretary, and nice to see you feeling better and getting around as well, too. I want to follow up on what happened in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center and try to understand that day a little bit better. You said, if I understood you correctly, that you were not in the room; you were obviously coming from the Department of Transportation, where you had been busy in a meeting in official business, but you had not been in the room when the decision was made -- to what you inferred was a decision made to attempt to shoot down Flight 77 before it crashed into the Pentagon. Is that correct?
MR. MINETA: I didn't know about the order to shoot down. I arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 a.m. And the president was in Florida, and I believe he was on his way to Louisiana at that point when the conversation that went on between the vice president and the president and the staff that the president had with him.
MR. ROEMER: So when you arrived at 9:20, how much longer was it before you overheard the conversation between the young man and the vice president saying, "Does the order still stand?"
MR. MINETA: Probably about five or six minutes.
MR. ROEMER: So about 9:25 or 9:26. And your inference was that the vice president snapped his head around and said, "Yes, the order still stands." Why did you infer that that was a shoot-down?
MR. MINETA: Just by the nature of all the events going on that day, the scrambling of the aircraft and, I don't know; I guess, just being in the military, you do start thinking about it, an intuitive reaction to certain statements being made.

Of course, the glaring issue is why does the log book, maintained by the Marine Corps guards at the PEOC, state that Mineta arrived in the 10:07, long after Flight 77 had hit the Pentagon.

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:57 PM

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

Very rarely have you seen me rely on "government" or "media". I take great delight in showing how "truth" theories do not match up with the evidence or reality.

In your opinion. Truth isn't about theory, it's about reality. Official results have always been paid committee reports, which always have huge holes in them and lots of ignored and unanswered inconvenient questions, including barricading evidence, sequestering evidence, classifying evidence illegally to hide government sponsored crime, etc. Etc. The government is a festering turd that cannot be successfully polished, but it isn't for a lack of trying.

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 10:15 PM
pale5218, This has developed into a good, and from both sides, respectful thread.
I am really glad we now have an experienced FAA controller with us, to ask him for FAA and radar based questions.
To balance out, a lot of otherwise uncertain things, accumulated over so many years already.
You firmly, and respectfully stand your ground, I applaud you for that.

Thus my message to fresh members : let's keep it this way, for a long time to come.
Don't force good and informed people out of this still globally important discussion, by constant trolling and derogative insulting.
We seem to be back on the mutually respectful track.

Zaphod58, old friendly adversary, welcome back in this forum. You know I highly respect and welcome your additions to the 9/11 discussion.
I too became quite disgusted by some posting behavior here, which forced me into some longer sabbaticals, now and then. Just to get my peace of mind back again. And it gave me much needed time to concentrate on researching those still unresolved 9/11 subjects.

facedye, a breath of fresh air, to see a fine logical thinking debater in the 9/11 discussion.

Do not view my posts as written in concrete, most of them are a work in progress, and most of the time I am open for additional info, even forcing me to change my opinion completely.
You will recognize when I put my hoofs firmly in the sand, then I use words like :
"I am quite sure" or "I am convinced" that ........! Fill in the blanks.

One such subject are the 25 NoC witnesses and their resulting conclusion that the OS for the Pentagon really needs some new official research. Especially subpoenas for the military and police members who gave such controversial witness interviews and to this day are put under gag orders by their superiors. That constitutes to far to long shameful behavior by these servants of the State, for most Americans and Foreigners alike.

As anybody can know after 16.5 long and sometimes not so pleasant years by now, I firmly believe a B 757-200 flew into column 14 at the Pentagon's west wall E-Ring's Wedge 1.

My beef with the official story are for example the 25 eyewitnesses of a north of CITGO gas station flying B 757-200. Which nullifies the official story of a south of that gas station incoming plane. And when you firmly believe these 25 NoC eyewitnesses, then they prove that the "recovered DFDR" from AA 77, the 5 downed light poles and the "exit hole" in the C-Ring, are all parts of a heinous false flag operation.

Another one I am 100 % sure of, is the seismic and photographic combination of evidence for the use of demolition techniques at WTC 7.
And there are some more, but getting deeper in those will now only diversify from this interesting thread.

Here is another radar data study for you, pale5218, by the NTSB, written February 15, 2002 :
Rec_Radar_ Data_ Study_all _aircraft.pdf - Google Drive

Buckle up for a lot of additional information.

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 10:23 PM

Page 4 , originally posted by: CaptainBeno :
Interesting theory indeed.
However, holes start to appear in you story when you state:
The average cruising speed "indicated" of a Boeing 757 is 528 mph or 850 kmh or 458 knots. This is cruising speed. Any deviation from that straight and level flight i.e. a descent, with throttles "pushed forward" will increase IAS. To say the pilot put the aircraft into a steep descent to hit the Pentagon without increasing IAS is complete rubbish.

pale5218 : That's not what it says in the transcript. The flight made a right 360 degree turn just west of the airport and the Ground Speed which is calculated by the radar system and displayed on the Data Block, it is showing 370 knots in the last radar hit. I don't think I said anything nor did I hear anything about a steep descent without increasing IAS.

As a matter of fact, the radar doesn't even display the ground speed until the controllers tag it with the S. The flight is three fourths of the way through the turn.

LT : IAS = indicated airspeed. An aircraft's speed through the air as indicated by the ASI (LT : ?), without correction for position error, altitude or outside air temperature. Also see CAS, RAS and TAS.
CAS = calibrated airspeed. Indicated airspeed corrected for air density and compressibility.
RAS (1) - rectified airspeed. Indicated airspeed corrected for instrument position error.
TAS - true airspeed. Rectified airspeed corrected for altitude and outside air temperature.

That last radar hit with its 370 knots speed from the first 84RADES publication was a few tenth of meters east of the Sheraton Hotel its southern side-wall's corner.
Much later they came up with additional radar hits, even one that laid behind the Pentagon West wall. Which they explained later again as a building-shadow artifact, caused by re-bounced radar waves.

CaptainBeno posted :

LT : that is a B757-200 to scale with the Pentagon's west wall. The tail is perhaps higher than depicted here.
Q. : What is depicted by the striped out lines, depicting a much wider right wing?

Wingspan B757-200 = 38.0 m (124 ft 10 inch).
Length of fuselage = 47.3 m (155 ft 3 inch).
Tail height from ground standing on wheels = 13.6 m (44 ft 6 inch).

12 Wall columns are covered by this drawing of a, to scale B757-200, between column 8 and 20.
Spacing between west wall first floor columns was 10 feet on center , columns at the first floor were 21 x 21 inch square.
That's 12 x 10 feet is 120 feet (36.58 meters) spacing between column 8 and 20. The wingspan of a B 757-200 is 38 meters. That fits quite well with all the imprints of the 2 wings and the tail on the exterior surface, and the missing facade columns cover the area where the fuselage hit at the second floor slab, and where its strongest section, the wing parts section between the two jet engines and the landing gear bays, impacted in the first floor between columns 11 and 18 .

Page 11 ASCE Pentagon Report : Concrete columns exist at 20 ft on center in the fifth story and at 10 ft on center in the lower stories.

The reinforced wall section of Wedge 1 consisted of double-H formed steel structures welded to the re-bars of the floor slabs, where the 5 by 7 ft window fitted neatly inside.
And KEVLAR netting was fitted inside the mortar and bricks filled-in walls.

The OS tells us to draw a 42 degrees-to-the-wall incoming plane, that means from this point of view, you have to draw the impact envelope on that wall as having a shorter right wing imprint than the left wing's imprint on that wall.

edit on 19/3/17 by LaBTop because: Added the 370 knots

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 10:30 PM

Page 4 , CaptainBeno : a reply to: pale5218
Yep, fair enough. However, given the evidence (Lots of threads etc etc) and my own personal knowledge of flying aircraft. This guy with his limited experience must have been a bloody ace if he could hold off straight and level at that speed inches above the ground (Take into account ground effect) and to not scratch the surface one little bit. At least he could be commended on his flying skills. I don't know anyone who could fly that low , score a direct hit, nice and level and not cause any pre damage to his surrounds?

LT : and the DFDR shows that 10 minutes earlier all three autopilot functions were switched off and kept off, until impact....So this unexperienced pilot MANUALLY flew a razor-sharp flight path, nearly mowing the Pentagon lawn with that plane's jet engine nacelles.
YEP, who am I, to doubt such a officially endorsed story.
Especially after watching and hearing all those 25 eyewitnesses who swear that they saw that plane flying on a TOTALLY different flight path, NoC, instead of SoC as the US Administrations wants you to believe.

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 10:39 PM

Page 5 : a reply to: hiddenNZ

CaptainBeno : Yep, kinda, you're right though.
In fixed-wing aircraft, ground effect is the increased lift (force) and decreased aerodynamic drag that an aircraft's wings generate when they are close to a fixed surface. When landing, ground effect can give the pilot the feeling that the aircraft is "floating". Also, when going extremely quick, it can be a pain in the ass. It either pulls you in or does not let you get low enough! Depends on your speed.
But all I'm saying is, he was extremely talented to keep it nice and level to get the hit he did that day. A fluke maybe?

I've tried it on a real sim. To get down nice and low before the freeway and get a hit. I just kept bouncing and hitting the grassy area. But hey, I'm no expert with 4500 hours.
Landing, sure....easy. The aircraft is set up for it. Full throttle...nope.

Did you try it all those times, flying MANUALLY, all autopilot functions switched off, all the way in, starting from above the Navy Annex its 8th Wing roof center part.?

Could you try that for me once more, but now flying a slight curve, aiming at a point about 50 meters north of that CITGO gas station's northern roof rim.? And at a speed of about 230 MPH, belonging to a standard bank of 35 degrees, as indicated by so many of these 25 eyewitnesses.
And then turning back your curved flight path to the impact point at column 14 on the Pentagon West wall.

MUCH obliged if you could make a video of that, just as Captain Rusty Aimer did for Pilots for Truth, but that one was to show that an unexperienced pilot could not fly the downward turn of 340 degrees at 500 MPH. The problem with that was that the speed inside that circle did not exceed 360 MPH, which makes that a quite doable exercise, even with all autopilot functions switched off 10 minutes earlier.

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 10:49 PM

Page 5 : a reply to: hiddenNZ

Zaphod58 : The easiest explanation for ground effect is that when you reach the same altitude as your wingspan, there's a cushion of air that "bounces" back up under the bottom of the wing, and pushes the aircraft up. So for a 757, at 125 feet, there's going to be a bounce effect, and the aircraft isn't going to sink through that altitude, without the pilot pushing forward on the control column. Ground effect results in reduced drag, and increased speed, because you don't have wingtip vortices forming.

LT :
Read the Ground effect explanation at the bottom of that page.

An airplane also tends to be more longitudinally stable in ground effect. It is slightly nose heavy. The downwash from the wing normally passes over the tail at an angle that produces a download on the tail. Ground effect deflects the path of the downwash and causes it to pass over the tailplane at a decreased angle. The tailplane produces more lift than usual and the nose of the airplane tends to drop. To counteract this tendency, more up elevator is required near the ground.

See also the data derived from the "recovered DFDR" in the diagram from the last 5 seconds of flight of AA 77 before impact, f.ex. in my posts in this thread, titled : : WHY FAKING >73° BANK-ANGLES for a NoC FLYING PLANE.? :
and read my logical explanation for the far too fast corrections of the vertical (up/down) forces on the plane in those last 5 seconds.

Realize that it means that those "inhumane" corrections started to happen already, far before the plane reached and crossed over Route 27 !!! The lawn was about 100 meters wide in front of the Pentagon's west wall.
From the ASCE Pentagon Report :

Page 14 and 15 : The first photograph (figure 3.3) captured an image of the aircraft when it was approximately 320 ft (approximately 0.42 second) from impact with the west wall of the Pentagon.Two photographs (figures 3.3 and 3.7), when compared, seem to show that the top of the fuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground when the first photograph of this series was taken

320 feet x 0.3048 m = 97.5 meters away from impact.
And 20 feet above the lawn = 6.1 meters with the top of the fuselage above the surface of the lawn. Subtract the vertical diameter from that fuselage plus the height of the engine and the pylon they hang from. That's very close to shaving that lawn.

See diagrams of a B 757-200 in my post here :
Height of fuselage-cabin is 4.01 m (13 ft 2 in). Height from bottom jet engine nacelle to bottom cabin seems to be 1.9 m. (6.2 ft )So, that's in total 5.91 meter.
Thus, it flew according to the ASCE engineers about 9 centimeter above the grass, while the engine shaved that grass..?

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 10:50 PM
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's great but for the third time I was referencing the planes degrees to the ground(building) from the sky and the insane maneuver used, not the perfect angle to strike an object, if you were even able to read slightly farther than that word, you would see perfect is representing the correction needed to not obliterate on impact with the ground. At the speed of the aircraft, it was a perfect maneuver and correction of angle. But that's all if you could read, looking forward to future irrelevancy.

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 10:51 PM
See now fig 3.1 on page 12 of the ASCE Pentagon Report :

The height (a) between the top of the fuselage to the bottom of the jet engine nacelles is 3 times less than the shown height (b=13.6 m - 44 ft 6 inch) of the tail off the ground in that figure 3.1 .
Use a pair of compasses and use Ctrl and + on your keyboard 7 times to enlarge your browser screen, so you get the maximum picture on your screen.

Thus (a) = 13.6 / 3 = 4.53 m (14 ft 8 inch ), so ASCE engineers assumed a B757-200 plane flew at that point when the first photo was taken, about 6.1 - 4.53 = 1.57 m above the lawn with the bottom of its jet engines nacelles.
When you observe photos from the impact region, taken from Route 27, you will see that the lawn in front of the impact point at column 14, slopes up from cut pole five to that impact point its height above the lawn there, at least over that distance for about a slope height of 1.5 meters, or some more.
According to the Official Story, the first light pole (all were 40 feet (12.2 meter) high) was struck at about 9 meter high by a wing's leading edge front. Note that the jet engine hangs under that wing with its nacelle-bottom about 3 meter lower. That leaves about 6 meter surface clearing for both jet engine nacelle bottoms, at that first contact point.

SOURCE, 2006 :
I translated that post into somewhat easier to read text :
Pole one's base stood, according to AA 77 its "recovered" DFDR barometric altimeter data, at an elevation of 39 feet above MSL (11.9 meter) (MSL = mean sea level) which indicates that the pole's top stood at 79 feet MSL (24.1 meter; just ad 12.2 meter pole length).
The impact point was situated according to the barometric altimeter measuring tubes of the plane (under the belly) at 33 feet MSL.
That makes for a 46 feet (14 meters) flight path descent-height difference for that plane's belly from pole 1 to impact.
The distance over the lawn from pole one to impact for a SoC flight path was 1036 feet (315.8 meters).
Post # 4 and next ones offers the additional information for the other 4 light poles. Read it.

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 10:57 PM

Post # 14, by Ricochet : One other point of height reference would be the generator trailer. A standard trailer is 13 feet tall, landing legs down, no power unit (truck) attached. If the engine clipped the top of it that would put the bottom of the engine housing at about 12 feet.

Now that's an interesting remark.!
That's 3.66 meters high, for the height of the top of that generator trailer with its deep gouge in its roof, as photos show. And that was not caused by the jet engine nacelle of the right wing, since that one seemed to have ripped through the corner part of the fence.
That gouge was caused by one of those three sharp fins extruding from under the bottom of a wing, beside the engine, on three places, towards the wing tip, that are guide rails for the extruding flaps at take-off or landing, here you see them in use under the left wing :

Note that a B 757-200 flying at 460 knots in thickest air at ground level will have its wing ends flexed up to the maximum possible, which easily counts for another 70 cm height difference you have to add to the standard distance from the bottom of the jet engine nacelle up to those sharp fins under its right wing.
Look that distance up. ! If it's more than 3 meter, and you add those 0.7 meter flex, then the right jet engine must have ploughed through the lawn....and the left jet engine must have been ripped off long before, since the plane flew into the west wall with its right wing tilted up about 3 to 5 degrees, according to those imprints left on that wall.

That's that generator trailer there inside that yellow lined box, pushed away into a 45 degree angle to that fence. It stood originally along that fence....
To me, that indicates a much nearer to 90 degrees incoming plane's right wing that gouged through that trailer's top.
Use Ctrl + keys at least 7 times to blow up that photo to the max in your browser.
Use Ctrl 0 keys to get back to standard view again.

Now go and look at the difference in height position of cut poles one and two (beside the overpass bridge over the Pike under it, which lead to the South Parking Lot , both standing ON TOP and beside Route 27 its road deck ), and the position of cut poles three and four, and their heights above the lawn there, compared to pole one and two, which stood on a quite elevated road bed, on top of a concrete and brick overpass. Which had sloping down sides. Which thus indicates a sudden descent rate from pole one and two (beside that underpass its Route 27 road deck, and at the rim of its sloping grass) to poles three and four (at the Pike underpass road level, which is a difference in height, between 4 and 5 meter or even slightly higher) that doesn't fit the possibilities of a Boeing 757-200. Even a jet fighter would have problems straightening out in such a few tens of meters to a leveled flight from a descent at a R/D of ~ 2000' MSL to ~40'MSL at 400 to 463 knots airspeed, from poles 1 and 2 towards poles 3 and 4.

For several good pictures of a lot what I told you, see this EXCELLENT critical review of the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report :

THAT PAGE is worth its own thread.

Do note, that the ASCE engineers themselves say in their report that they were only let in to the crash site at the Pentagon, AFTER all debris was meticulously removed..... in October 2001. They had no chance at all to perform thorough, scientifically robust research on ANY plane and building debris. They were only shown photographs of it.... and were led into a totally cleaned up site on their first visit at the former crash site.

And here you see how damn high that overpass was....compared to the South Parking exit ramp road where the other 3 light poles stood :

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 11:01 PM

Listen to and view the positions of the 5 light poles in this above video from its 8:00 point to its end at 10:51 to see the discrepancy between the Flight AA 77 animation the NTSB published in 2006, and the assumed flight path data as recovered and calculated from AA 77's DFDR (digital flight data recorder) by the NTSB, or one of their contracted firms for this task.
Whatever firm they outsource such a task, the NTSB was the main responsible in the end, after they published it first as their work.... Later they said that another firm had made that animation...Yep. Another strange event in the long string of same strange ones.

This is the opinion about the Ground Effect subject :

-snip- Flight 77 was not trying to land, nor in a flare, nor at approach speed, thus no high angle of attack, no ground effect, and no "cushion." Based on FDR (flight data recorder) evidence: full power, 460 knots. At full power, a descent requires a nose low attitude.
Even level flight near maximum airspeed calls for a low angle of attack. As you speed up, lift increases, so you must adjust your nose attitude (and thus airfoil angle of attack) downward if you want to descend at high airspeed.
That is what Flt 77 did. R/D (rate of descent) for flight 77 from 4 nm (nautical miles) out based on FDR info, ground plot, and altitude points. (Roughly 4 nm away @ 2000' MSL (mean sea level) to about 40' MSL' at impact point at 400+ knots) ~ 7 nm per minute, lose about 2000 feet of altitude, it's about 3500 fpm. Between 3000 and 4000 fpm is a good range of values, if the pilot was able to maintain a uniform R/D, which I doubt he did. If, as it appears, he flattened out at the end and reduced his R/D in the last few seconds to stay on target and not hit the ground prematurely, (See below) his angle of attack is still low, and "Ground effect" does not come into play.

"Fluid compression" within a wingspan's distance from the ground (125' for a 757), besides not existing in that flight
regime as any "ground effect, would be experienced as the transient compression of a small column of air that disperses quickly, below or behind the center of lift. At low angles of attack such "compression" would happen behind
the center of lift on the wings relative to the direction of travel. In the direction of travel, with nose down (below horizontal) air is being compressed above the wing and at the leading edge as the aircraft skin meets the air molecules. The aircraft keeps moving ahead of the alleged "compression wave" under the wing. (Take a toy plane, tilt the nose 5 degrees below the horizontal, and see where an air cushion would have to be under the airfoil.) Flt 77 wasn't flaring, air below thus could not form a non-existent "cushion" to break downward momentum. (Momentum is Mass *Velocity.) Flt 77 hit the building before it hit the ground in any event, (and clipped a few light poles.) This "Scholar" inadvertently has made a case for why the building was hit with no ground impact first, but he makes that case for the wrong reason. The alleged "cushion" was simple lift from high airspeed and a slight nose adjustment. If the hijacker pilot had made a large nose-up control input, increasing the angle of attack considerably, you'd have seen a ballooning (and a miss) though not due to ground effect, but due to normal creation of lift. At 150 knots, L = /2*K*V^2.
At 450 knots, you get roughly 9 ((450^2)/(150^2)) times the lift from V^2 increases. You don't need ground effect, which isn't there anyway.

I got the explanations (I filled in in brackets) in the above text for those abbreviations here :
See my above DFDR explanation for the last 5 seconds of flight of AA 77.
See also the EXTREME low flight path above the Pentagon lawn in the last of those 5 seconds :

-snip- The biggest risk to a hijacker was over controlling the nose attitude, or wings. Flying fast required setting a good "first guess" descent angle early on in his attack run, to avoid over controlling close in. Speed of closure required him to pay very close attention to his target's drift in his windscreen. At high speeds, small errors and subsequent corrections are needed
large corrections can be magnified due to large aerodynamic forces (much lift.

One minuscule, slightly too heavy, nose up or down correction with the steering column by a human pilot in those last 5 seconds would have caused havoc for their planned impact.
That's why I see an autopilot controlled airplane performing those last 5 seconds, "They" did not have enough faith in the professionalism of their patsy pilot, so that diagram indicates that "they" added a last seconds overtake of the plane its steering column functions by a small but powerful and fast, secretly added flight computer. Probably they only had to add a timed switch, coupled to a distance meter (perhaps even triggered by a laser beam from inside the tree at impact point), that brought the control of the plane back to the already build-in autopilot functions of that plane.

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 11:03 PM

a reply to: pale5218 :
NoCorruptionAllowed : I must respectfully submit that because there were so many ignored facts by officials, and sequestered evidence ignored by the "steering" committees involved in the official explanations, that everything or anything these officials and government people have stated are simply not credible in any way. Even if everything they said did actually happen, their lies and stories simply have no credibility either way. I also know from spending years actually building the wings for the Boeing company that they are not hollow. They have very strong front and rear extruded spars and the inboard ribs are not just thin metal like the baffle panels every 2 plus feet are. There are also fairly thick upper and lower rib strengtheners that would be like knife blades when hitting anything at the speed said was crash speed.

Those inboard ribs the wing skins are attached to and the wing skins near the wing's center section are insanely over designed for strength and robustness. They would have been a powerful sword when striking that building and there isn't a trace of damage in places that would have been obliterated if that aircraft actually struck at that speed. Not shattered into dust as they say happened.

The other factor that is rarely addressed is how the official stories have all been sold to everyone, by using peer pressure, emotional pressure, the fear of ridicule, and every other means of deceptive pressures to force that story on the public or be the target of a political form of excommunication on naysayers, unbelievers, and even people asking too many uncomfortable questions.

Whether or not the official story is true, the stench of a dirty rotting rat is quite prevalent and still smells today just as strong.

LT : You can see the destruction of all first floor columns in a wide row in the Pentagon's west wall in the first published photos. That's where the fuselage and its strongest wings sections hit just under the concrete of the second floor slab and its steel bar reinforced concrete was obliterated for about a 4 meter wide and 3 meter deep hole in its slab, by the center beam of the aircraft. As can be seen in some early photos.

And those dangling down from the second floor slab, straight thingies, you see at the right side of those first pictures, are NOT bend columns, but sheared off reinforced with re-bar concrete beams with their thin limestone deck plates, that used to be covering the second floor slab. Now they hung under an angle, after impact, seemingly indicating an impact under the official angle of 42 degrees to that wall. But that's not true, now that you know what it are, you can imagine a plane impacting under a much closer to 90 degrees attack angle causing such damage. A SoC flying at 42 degrees, then impacting plane, would scrape off those lime-stones and push out most of the cement from between its steel re-bars.

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 11:06 PM

Page 9, originally posted by: facedye
-snip- the speed of the craft, again, based on all official reports available, was ~530 mph before impact. what this tells me is that the information you're referencing and citing is entirely incomplete, and non-inclusive of all available data.
I have no idea why this reconciles anything for you. it just adds more fuel to the fire.

pale5218 : the pilot reported seeing the aircraft in a descent on a flight path into the Pentagon. If you look at the video and see where the C130 was when the B757 hit, I would say 7-8 miles in trail. That being said, easy to see an airplane, easy to see it hit the building at this distance. What would not have been AS easy to see is the plane hitting the light poles.
-snip- did you watch the video because you can see what direction it comes from, clear without a doubt. The angle is not known because you have to see how the building is situated. I mean are you asking descent angle? lateral angle?
The angle isn't needed from what I described the direction is clear.

I am stating what I see on the radar, 370 knots across the ground.

The knot is a unit of speed equal to one nautical mile (1.852 km) per hour, approximately 1.151 mph. The ISO Standard symbol for the knot is kn.
530 mph (853 kmh) = 460.6 knots.
370 knots = 425.8 mph. (684.8 kmh)
That's a huge 104.2 mph (167.7 kmh) discrepancy between the recovered digital flight data recorder (DFDR) end speed value and the radar 84RADES value.
Which is easily explained by the position of the last radar return in the very first radar reports in the early years after 9/11, which was measured just east from the Sheraton Hotel.

Later, 84RADES came up with much closer last radar returns only a few tens of meters ahead of the impact point. In fact they came up with two last radar return points, where one was BEHIND the impact point, which was explained by some posters here as radar reflective building-shadow artifacts.
So, how do we know if the other one wasn't also such a reflective artifact.?
And how did 84RADES years later obtain those much nearer radar returns.?
I expect they combined long and short distance radar returns positions, from different radar dishes at multiple airports and main military radar sites. Which for sure introduced quite a massive uncertainty factor in their calculations for these two last returns.

(ATS Search for : LaBTop Pentagon , or : LaBTop 84RADES , or any other smart word search combined with my screen name, then you'll find a plethora of FACTS regarding Flight AA 77, posted by me and some other historical truth-driven fact finders in those threads)

LT : O'Brien, the pilot of the C-130, has stated in his only online interview (easy to find when you, by now, know his family name), that he could not see the impact, only the smoke rising after that. He was trailing too far behind AA 77.
There was the Navy Annex high on a hill, and there was a row of high trees behind the last, 8th building-wing of the Navy Annex, that hindered his view on the plane and the west wall impact point of the Pentagon.

The plane dove behind those trees, where sergeants William Lagasse and Chadwick Brooks saw it passing to the north of them, about 50 meters north of the northern canopy of the CITGO gas station, in a slight turn back to the Pentagon's west wall, and flying much slower, about 230 MPH, in a standard bank of about 30 to 35 degrees bank angle, which btw sufficiently indicates already a much slower air speed belonging to such a bank angle.
The eyewitness accounts of (by now) 25 persons indicate as a fact a NoC flight path, as seen by all these people.
From those 25, there are multiple ones that stood IN FRONT of that west wall in a traffic jam inside the two POV lanes of Route 27, and a few even in front of the helicopter landing port, who ALL stated on their interviews on the day of 9/11 and/or in later interviews with research groups, officially endorsed by the US Administration and Army History Units , that the plane came over very low AND straight over their heads.

These easily to be checked observations, immediately nullify the 42 degrees attack angle from the officially endorsed story.
These 25 witness accounts, also exemplify that the 5 downed light poles official story was a false flag operation. And with a high probability exercised by high-ups in the Pentagon top brass together with some powerful parts of the 3-letter agencies, so abundant and rampant in place in the US playing field.

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 11:08 PM

Posted by GBP/JPY in page 10 :
posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 12:59 PM
Oh, the post above me...
I saw a brand new Jet Ranger with the three color paint job......
With a video crew reporting the news.......they said not enough debris to fill a suitcase
They were early in the event, and the video was clear and plain...

So, I have the image in my volumes of memories, oh and they match Shanksville, another Jet Ranger with a new three color paint they come from the factory
For a little detail, I have all of it....the trees at Shanksville had no debris on that video.....
edit on 12-3-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)

LT : Curious. Have to check my video files.
Serious readers should search ATS with the words : " LaBTop Viola Sailor interview "
.... then you will never believe the OS for Shanksville anymore.

And these official 9/11 Video sites :
September 11 Television Archive : Free Movies : Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

You can find a more complete version of this collection (3000 hours of television from 20 channels over 7 days) at Understanding 9/11: A Television News Archive. This collection contains television news programs recorded live from around September 11, 2001 by the non-profit Television Archive to...

And this one, again : HUGE list of photos+videos :

By the way, these are all my authoring threads, there's a LOT of 9/11 facts and logic in them, contributed by many ATS members, to be read by a novice 9/11 researcher :
33 authored by me, threads. However, the basic stats show, I did 60 member threads...?

And member roadgravel in page 16 did a wonderful job by finding that info about one missing AIM-9 or AIM-120 missile under a returning armed F-16 on 9/11 :
I never saw (and I missed little over the years) that specific witness account.
Thank you so much for that find.!

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 11:12 PM

WORD31 departed about 0930 (LT : no, 0927), and VENUS77 which was seen over the Pentagon, departed around 0945 (LT : no, 0943).

Zaphod58, I believe I told you some years ago already, that one of the secrets of the E4-B was its capability to take over or disturb the autopilot functions of an attacking adversary, as one of its top secret defense measures.
In my mind, it was very possible that those two E4-B's were the remote control planes, that were used by the Pentagon brass involved in the supposed 9/11 plot, to overtake the autopilot functions of the planes (AA 77 and UA 93), loaded with patsy-hijackers, and steer these planes in the last seconds of flight. By the way, that system also worked when the E4-B stood on the tarmac, waiting to ascend, within a certain quite miles wide upwards circle-formed air space around its hull's antennas.
There were four E4-B's in the US inventory and in service on 9/11, one stood however on the tarmac at Offutt AFB and the third E-4B (VIVI 36) was sitting on the ground at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base waiting for departure approval at 9:40 a.m.. So, New York attacks also remotely led into the towers.? Seems not possible from these planes.
But supposing the huge efforts and capital invested in the false flag attack 9/11 surely seems to have been, why not install that secret equipment anywhere near the Twin Towers, f.ex. in the 23rd OEM floor of WTC 7.? And let it conveniently be destroyed in its collapse at 17:20 p.m.

Commander Kolstad, 23000 hrs flight time, 6000 hrs in 757's and 767's, said about AA 77 and the Pentagon attack : "and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”

Please consider this diagram too, see the vertical fluctuations in the last 5 seconds of flight of AA 77, it's impossible that those vertical corrections could be executed by a human pilot :

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 11:14 PM
By the way, thank you Zaphod58 for your link to this post by Boone 870 about WORD31 and VENUS77 :
I however agree also with poster Stillresearchn911 :

And this is the link from the OP (thedman, thank you so much for linking to a reasonable researcher its blog) where all the E4-B info came from :
It is a VERY good read, and the rest of his links are highly interesting too.
It's a continuation of his work as a :

professional staff member of the Congressional Joint Inquiry and the 9-11 Commission.
I joined the staff of the Joint Inquiry, and then the Commission, for a specific reason. I was a witness to the immediate aftermath at the Pentagon site; my office in Crystal City faced the building. As a career intelligence officer, military and civilian, I wanted to know more. That quest continues.

On the Joint Inquiry I served on the “Other Agency” Team. Teams were dedicated to three specific organizations; the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Another team examined policy and history leading up to 9-11. My team, then, had a very large plate–the Department of Defense, less NSA, but including the Defense Intelligence Agency, the, then, National Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office; the Departments of Energy, State, Treasury and Transportation, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); and the Secret Service. Our mandate was to look at intelligence issues; we did not examine in any detail the actual events of 9-11, itself.

On the Commission I served on Team 8; our task was to look at the events of the day in the sky outside the airplanes. A different team looked at the airlines and events inside the airplanes. Our focus was on two specific organizations, FAA and NORAD and its components, specifically the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS). We established the essential facts of the day and told our story as “We Have Some Planes,” Chapter One of the Commission Report.

Both the Commission and the Joint Inquiry operated under tight time constraints and there was simply not enough time to do everything we wanted to do. With the recent and continuing release of Commission files I have the opportunity while things are still reasonably clear in my mind to revisit my work, hence the title of this blog.

My resume submitted to the 9-11 Commission contains this handwritten notation “NORAD issue–he did ‘Bros to Rescue’ [Brothers to the Rescue] issue.”

There is a short feature article about my Joint Inquiry Staff work in “MINES, the magazine of Colorado School of Mines,” vol. 93, no. 2, Spring 2003, page 16. The article is in PDF format and can be accessed via the result of this Google search.

Miles L. Kara Sr.

We should have many more of these kind of dedicated guys.
I and my readers have to do a lot of, new to us, reading again...
START with this one, you really SHOULD :

The Trump Revolution: A final word :
Then read his last one :
The Trump Revolution: 9/11 Presidential-Level Issues Considered :

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 11:16 PM

Yes WORD31 was westbound. VEN77 might have been planning an East Coast exercise but when he departed, it was not to join the exercise. He had a purpose ! He wouldn't even tell the Andrews Controllers.

After the impact of AA 77, VENUS77 was asked to fly its predetermined holding pattern SE of IAD, while WORD31 did the same NE of IAD.

VENUS22 was present in the air from the start of that radar animation, any news on that one.?

About Hani Hanjour : think "lookalikes and switched passports".
Everybody tries to neglect interviews with the father of the 9/11 hijackers their ringleader in Cairo, Egypt, who insisted that his son phoned him in the days AFTER the day of 9/11.

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 11:20 PM
To give you, the reader, an inside view of how Pilots for Truth web site owner Rob Balsamo operates :

1. Note the right white window text :
2. John Farmer (911files here) posts his links in post nr 17 and next ones :
3. Rob trashes John Farmer in post nr 23 in his usual modus operandi :
4. Pay attention to post nr 24, mentioning Dennis Cimino, who got also trashed by Balsamo, since he also disagreed with him on some subjects.
Google for the Vancouver Hearings in You Tube videos, where he spoke about the problems he saw in that AA 77 recovered DFDR, regarding the ?recovered? flight data in it.

Just as I got trashed there at PfT as I politely confronted Balsamo on his "fly-over" fairy tale, showing him that Roosevelt did not see a fly-over but saw the turning NW C-130 with O'Brien as the pilot.
While already bringing forth an additional 12 eyewitnesses who clearly saw a NoC plane.
He then altered that one thread's last posts by me, the only thread btw I got the chance to post in there, and moved first the last part of it, with all his immature insults, to the Trash or Troll Forum, whatever they name it.
Now I can't find my original thread back in neither their Pentagon, nor their American 77 forum. Perhaps in their Troll forum?
You can't Search there anymore if you are not a member but just a guest.
They suspended a LOT of well known and knowledgeable ATS members there.
He can't handle simple critique. 'Nough said.

This is their last page of their Gate discussion, with the usual vitriol against me.
In my Aug 2011 ATS thread titled "At last, The "Watergate" Of 9/11 : " about that departure gate confusion, I proved in the last pages, from which southern gate AA 77 indeed departed from. They never added that in their smear thread's last page.

Despite that, they have saved a lot of aeronautical fact finding there, posted over the years, however, you should double and triple check everything there, since over the years, some of it has changed considerably.
They were seriously wrong on several important subjects, like their fly-over theory, the real departure gates numbering for AA 77, the ACARS case, the G-forces case, etc.

Informative perhaps for this thread :

Actual C-130 Interaction With The Pentaplane (PfT) :

9/11 Pentagon Radar And Controller's Voiceover, embedded divx video (gone), but some interesting remarks?

Their Pentagon forum :

Their American 77 forum :

Their Pentagon page, still includes their wrong northern gate departure ideas :
AA 77 really departed from Concourse D, southern gate 26 the morning of 9/11/2001.

Their Media page :

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 11:25 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

Except it can't. I've actually worked with their crews and been on the E-4s. They're flying command posts and communications relays. They were developed as airborne backup launch control platforms. They're stuffed to the gills with communications gear, but they can't override an autopilot system.

new topics

top topics

<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in