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: 36
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 08:01 PM
a reply to: Salander

Oh I would LOVE to know what "evidence" you found that the North Tower had bolts removed. PLEASE tell us where you discovered that.

posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 11:08 PM
A reply to: rayjoh

Rayjoh : Regarding wing Flexing in page 34.[/url]

Of course wings flex because of the weight of the fuselage, and the flex will always be up.
That's why I wrote "thus the plane's fuselage bottom will hang in between those flexed up wingtips, 3 or more meters lower than at landing speeds." Note the words "hang in between" which indicates its weight. Read my FULL words again, it should be clear to any reader with some education that I include weight and G forces in my words :
Does that conflict with your words :

rayjoh : No. The wings bending up depends on the total weight of the airplane.
Not the air density or airplane speed. The bending depends also on how many G the airplane pulls up, not if it is done at cruise level or sea level.

The air density and resulting lift at cruising levels of 10,000 meters/10 km up is a LOT less than at ground level. Thus a plane has to fly there at high speeds to stay airborn and in level flight, its level set by trimming its movable horizontal tail and wing parts.
Up there, you need an oxygen mask or a pressurized cabin, because there's less gas (air) molecules.
And do not forget we are discussing here a fictional B757-200 that according to its allegedly recovered DFDR, flew in its last seconds at 825 kmh at a few feet above ground level.
That's the normal cruising speed at 10,000 meters (10 km) high, in THIN air.
In dense air near ground, at that same speed, its wings will bend up to over its maximum allowed angles, especially when trying to level off from a shallow dive from over the last, 8th Wing of the Annex roof :

By the way, the right expression should have been this :
""The wings bending up (flexing up) depends on the total weight of the airplane.
And on its wings construction, wings surfaces and wing tank"s configuration and the air density and airplane speed.""

Why that second sentence addition.? Well, just try to get a B757-200 to rise up from a smooth runway on the moon, where there's no air at all.
It will never rise up one millimeter, and its wings will not flex up at all, no matter how fast it will roll on its wheels, even rolling at 825 kmh.
Any slight flexing up and down (bouncing) which will eventually occur during that "taxying" will be the result of eventual pot holes in that fictional runway.
Because there's no lift at play, since there's no air.
Thus its weight can not end up after departure, hanging between the uplifted wings there, in that vacuum.

Btw, its normal jet engines will not work either in a vacuum, since they depend on air intake, so we change them for virtual rocket powered engines, but still inside the standard nacelles under the wings, we do not want to shoot it in an orbit, we only want to prove that a plane's wings have no function in a full vacuum.
And at 10 km high up in the THIN AIR there, those jet engines, together with those wings will still take-in enough AIR to deliver enough lift at that SPEED of 825 kmh, to let airplanes fly in a straight and level flight path. The pilot only has to trim it a tad bit heavier than at ground level, to keep it in level flight, since there is less air (gas) molecules.

Now ask yourselves, which wings would flex up more, from :
1. A plane that falls down as a leaf, so, in a horizontal level, in the 10 km high region, where there are sparse air molecules (thin air),
2. A plane that does the same, but now near the ground level region, where there are a maximum amount of air molecules (denser air).


posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 11:18 PM

During the test, the wings on the 787 were flexed upward “approximately 25 feet” which equates to 150 percent of the most extreme forces the airplane is ever expected to encounter during normal operation. The test is used to demonstrate a safety margin for the design and is part of the certification process to show the airplane can withstand extreme forces.

25 feet x 0.3048 = 7.62 meters !
Divide that figure by 150 % gives 1 % = 0.0508 x 100 % = 5.08 meters at 100 % of the most extreme forces the airplane's wing tips are ever expected to encounter during normal operation. I proposed in my former posts, a 3 meters wing tip flexing up, that's 3/5th, or 60 % of the 100 % value, for a B757-200, since it has stiffer wings than a B787.

That B757-200 was NOT operating under normal conditions, according to the DFDR.
At excessive speeds of around 825 kmh, in dense air with more drag/air resistance than at cruising speed in thin air, and a LOT more LIFT at that speed and low altitude, and an impressive amount of extra G's when leveling off from a dive, AT THAT crazy high SPEED.

Excessive lift, as you can see by the amount of orange weights that pull, through a pulley system, on the top sides of those two wings in the photo above.
That test plane HANGS through cables and pulleys and orange weights in that test system, it's not standing on the floor.
The front (nose) side center weight is part of a balance leverage bed, that can vary the uplifting forces, the two weights left and right of it are part of the upright holding forces through two pulleys and that V-shaped connection block on top of the plane.
There are many more of those at both sides further back, as you can see when you zoom this photo.
Press your Ctrl key and simultaneously your + key, seven times, to get your maximum browser magnification in Firefox and other browsers. Or, click this link, magnify, and see those two white, extremely high curved up wings in the background :

The wing tips of a large aircraft, for example, might move up and down through more than 6 feet relative to the fuselage when the aircraft goes from taxiing on the ground, where the wings only have to support their own weight, to flight, where they support the weight of the entire aircraft. By the way, when its wing tanks are filled with the maximum allowed fuel load, its wing tips will hang lower during taxiing on the runway.

Some more nuggets of knowledge : the maximum deflection of the wing tip on the long body B-707, without structural deformation, is 22 feet/6.71 meters (max. positive G to max. negative G). The B-707 wing tip moved through 14 feet from no lift, to lift, at runway lift-off.

During the 2005/2006 severe wing loading tests of the Airbus-380, the wing failed between the outboard and inboard engines at 1.5 times the limit load, at a deflection of 24.5 feet or 7.47 meters .

The Boeing 747-400 wing is expected to snap off at a maximum deflection of 26 feet or 7.92 meters.

Thus, in this 9/11 Pentagon attack case, we can say that my mentioned 3 meters wing tip flex-up at 825 kmh, in dense air, near ground, inside the last maneuver to level off from a shallow dive, at near maximum G, while cutting light pole nr 1 in half in its process, is a quite conservative approximation.

In simpler terms : a B-757-200 was hanging with its full weight on both its wings and wing tips while its wings were "braking" on a bed of densest possible air molecules, at 825 kmh near ground level, while trying to level-off, which resulting G-forces maneuver caused its wing tips to flex up and perform at its near maximum load design values.


posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 11:23 PM
Zaphod1958, these reads are especially for you too, you're also fond of that era its knowledge snippets :
(Btw, the Professional Pilots Rumour Network is a very good alternative for some of the readers/members at the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forums, and here too).

USAF maintenance training for my AFSC (job code) was on the B-52. It was stated that normal wing flex at the tips on the BUFF was +/- 7 feet. So that's a total flex of 14'

The B-52 is a high wing aircraft with an anhedral. There are outrigger gear on the wingtips of the BUFF to prevent wingtip strikes. When they were heavily laden both outriggers could be in ground contact but normally they would not be touching the ground. Also there was some differences on the tip tanks that were mounted on the different models that may have had a definite effect on wing flex. One of the other interesting things about the BUFF is that during climb-out you would actually have a negative deck angle. It was pretty wild to see them climb out with the nose down!

The 747 is a low wing with a dihedral. Two very different design concepts, between the two different aircraft. I would have to say that the wing flex would be very different as well.

Not that I can get all that good of a look at by observing 74's during takeoff but the wing flex on a 742 does not even come close to that. Have no idea what the normal flex would be on a 74. FearlessFreep is offline.

What are the effects of the Boeing-787's very flexible wings.?

The amount of flex is really a product of the material. The wing requires a specified ultimate strength; with metal, that translates into a given amount of flex. This can be varied within limits, but it is really the material, its stiffness to yield point ratio, and its fatigue properties, that control how much flex you are going to end up with. CFRP is a very different material, and has much less stiffness for the same yield point, and has essentially no fatigue problems. This is beneficial in that it provides a smoother ride in turbulence; the wing acting essentially like a giant leaf spring. There is some lift lost due to the nature of the curvature, though. However, this is relatively small.
CFRP (Carbon Fiber) : Increasing stiffness, means increasing mass, means decreasing yield/lift. This material provides high strength with a relatively low stiffness/mass, meaning a good ratio and, in turn, the consequential flex that you see.
You could build much stiffer wings with CFRP. However, the increase in mass will reduce the resultant lift more than having 'flat' wings.

Wing stress test of the German made DG-1000M motorized Glider plane.
From here :

Antares 20E: Bruchversuch / Break test / Ultimate load test.

JS1 Revelation Structural Wing test, Jonker Sailplanes.

Part [1.2] : The XB-52 was a big, boxy machine with a high-mounted wing swept back 35 degrees and a conventional tail arrangement. It was powered by eight P&W YJ57-3 engines with 38.7 kN (3,950 kgp / 8,700 lbf) thrust each. The J57s were fitted in four pods, two engines to a pod, suspended on pylons below and forward of the wing. The inboard pods were 10.4 meters (34 feet 2 inches) from the center-line and the outboard pods were 18.29 meters (60 feet) from the center-line. Interestingly, in practice a pod suffering an uncontrollable fire would generally fall off the wing, sparing the rest of the aircraft, a "feature" Boeing engineers would later describe as an "unexpected benefit".

The wings were thick, with a chord (ratio of cross-sectional height to width) of 15% at the root, tapering to 8% in the outer wing. They could flex from 3 meters (10 feet) down to 6.7 meters (22 feet) up. The heavy engines helped dampen wing flutter.
The wings and the fuselage were loaded up with flexible fuel bladders, providing a total capacity of 147,120 liters (38,820 US gallons). The bladders were used, instead of integral fuel tanks, to prevent leaks that would have been caused by the flexing of the airframe in flight. When fully fueled, the wingtips dropped 2.74 meters (9 feet) while sitting on the runway. They normally curved upward in flight.
As with the B-47, the landing gear arrangement prevented the bomber from performing a nose-up rotation during takeoff. To deal with this issue, the B-47 had been designed to sit on the runway with a nose-up attitude. In contrast, the B-52's fuselage was kept level, while the wing was canted up six degrees instead. This meant that the machine could be climbing rapidly when the nose was still pointed down, an experience that probably felt something like riding in an elevator.
In the late 1950s, the need to disperse B-52 operations to as many airfields as possible, including overseas installations, to protect them from a nuclear first strike led to a multiplication of this demand on resources.

On 21 May 1956, a B-52B flying from Eniwietok Island in the Pacific performed the first airdrop of a US hydrogen bomb in the CHEROKEE test, part of the REDWING series of nuclear shots.

It was the first time the B-52 dropped a live nuclear bomb. The weapon, a Mark 15 "Zombie" with a yield of almost four mega-tonnes, was dropped over Bikini Atoll. Due to a procedural screw up, the bomb detonated 30 seconds too soon, with the B-52 and other aircraft flying in the exercise caught up in the blast. They were badly beaten up but survived, which was fortunate as bailing out was not an option under the circumstances. B-52s would perform other test drops of nuclear weapons until 1963, when the US signed the Nuclear Test-Ban treaty, which prohibited above-ground testing to reduce releases of radioactivity into the environment.

Starting on 16 January 1957, three B-52Bs flew around the world nonstop under Project POWER FLITE, using mid-air refueling to stay aloft 45 hours and 19 minutes. The exercise was a clear demonstration of SAC's ability to reach any place in the world, just as the nuclear test drops demonstrated what the B-52 could do when it got there.

The militaries of the world tend to take breath taking risks to get what they want.
That's why a civilian government should always be on the other, somewhat higher side of the scale, to keep natural civilian science wisdom inside but on top of its resulting power-balance equations.
It seems nowadays, this "natural" balance is lost, and I base the term "nowadays" on quite a wide interpretation scale.
Any fresh incoming US president is quickly molded into the long term aggressive US military-Moloch apparatus goals. And those are not defensive, but aggressive politics, for many, many decades already.

Sadly enough, it's the same old song again, after just a few months passed.
I lost my last shimmer of hope on working towards a new world peace.
We are on the brink of the next dark ages, if a diplomatic miracle does not occur.

posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 11:27 PM
A reply to: pinch1435

Pinch1435, your snidely approach in page 34[/url] doesn't hide a blunt dis-interest to at least READ the already offered links in the former pages. Just bursting into a 30+ pages long thread and launch a quick but flawed opinion, without checking up the details first, does no good to anyone's professional reputation.

If you had read (DO it now) my already offered page 145 of the 201 pages in my SCRIBT link (CLICK THIS LINK) in my explanatory post at page 32, you would have noticed that it is a FOIA freed, OFFICIAL ISCAP document.

Description : 9/11 attacks: Air Threat Conference Call transcript.
Released by ISCAP under FOIA appeal 2012-076.
Prepared by: Ms. Janet Edghill, 614-4665 Phone her, if you really think pages 146 to 201 are falsified.? After just 2 years she will still be there.
Or you phone or email to the ISCAP offices, or write them a letter :

Thus your snidely remarks don't hold any weight at all, especially since we may assume, that you never were allowed into such a top secret Significant Event conference, thus you will have no conclusive evidence at all what kind of terminology will be used in such top level phone conferences.
And a military-terms spell checker, beside the normal spellchecker, will have been used at those levels, before sending it into the public realm :

pinch1435 : It's bull crap, that's what it is. The product of your or someone else's imaginative mind - and someone who has been watching too many movies. Terminology is all wrong, nothing like that would be released in this manner, the "fog of war" ruled at that time, none of what you posted makes any sense whatsoever.
But I'm always up for some good fiction! Could you post the rest of that "transcript" of the PEOC? Thanks!

Well, see my above link.
It seems the top brass of the US Joint Staff and their judicial department (USD(I) = Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence), and you too, watch thus too many patriotic tainted Hollywood movies, which they btw, usually finance too.
These are also full of military mismatches --of course essentially inserted for propaganda purposes, to keep the western alliance their patriotic baseline feelings at home and abroad as high as possible, in the silent majority part of the populace-- while checked on plausibility by several military departments, always involved in their making.
A movie director doesn't get any recorded US military related material without the full consent of the US military its Joint Staff top brass.

You seem to profile yourself as a professional in the aeronautical and military trades, thus, if we may believe your take on this piece of "bull crap", it is thus written by a non military schooled amateur, and one thus unaware of the usual military terminology.
How come the top brass of the Joint Staff has signed off on this -in your professional eyes- clearly piece of "bull crap".?
Are the Joint Staff and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and their Office of Legal Counsel (page 146 of 201) also all amateurs.?


posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:00 AM
More reply to: pinch1435

The following two links are very helpful in unveiling all these military abbreviations and terms in that FULL 9/11 Attacks, Air Threat Conference Call - transcript, you so gracefully asked for :

1. Scope: DoD. Source: Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, (under "We" ) :
wiki leaks dot org (ATS, why is wiki leaks . org blanked out in the following 2, correctly written links ??? )

Weapons free zone (military) = An air defense zone established for the protection of key assets or facilities, other than air bases, where weapon systems may be fired at any target not positively recognized as friendly. (JP 3-52)
Weapons free zone could be mis-typed, and become counter-productive as "weapons freeze".
(Under Fr ), only Free-fire area (military) could comply to an order from VP Cheney.

2. Scope: DoD. Source: US Military Abbreviations, (under "Fr") :
In a search there, the term "freeze" does not come up, the only hits that contains the letters "free Z e" are NFZ = Nuclear Free Zone, and NWFZ = Nuclear Weapons Free Zone.
And under "fre" the only hit for our interest field is Free-Fire Area = FFA.
A search with the term "weapon" returns many abbreviations but nothing with the term "freeze" in it. The term "freeze" is non-existing in this US military abbreviations list.

Let us have a closer look at that SCRIBD file its first 146 pages (DDO file pages 203 to 224).
DDO = (1) Deputy Director of Operations; (2) Deputy Duty Officer.
EA = (1) Emergency Action(s); (2) Electronic Attack; (3) Executive Agent.
WILCO = will coordinate (???, page 45 of 201).

It seems to start as a transcript of some hijacked planes exercise(s?) in the Alaska and Canada regions.
If this was on the day of 9/11, is not fully clear.
From page 1 of 201 to page 5, we seem to read a TAPE #5, SIDE 1.
From page 5 of 201 to page 22, we read a TAPE #5, SIDE 2.
The DDO conference file its own page 224, which is SCRIBD page 22 of 201, states this :


DEPOSITION SERVlCES, INC., hereby certifies that the attached pages represent an accurate transcript of the electronic sound recording of the proceedings of the DDO Conference on September 11, 2001.

And then suddenly the DDO page numbering jumps from page 224 to page 153 on the SCRIBD page 23 of 201. And starts its text out of the blue, with the last half of a sentence.
Then, from page 39 of 201 on, we read a TAPE #4, SIDE 2 (1855, is that a time stamp?), so we may suppose that the text on pages 23 to 39 are from a TAPE #4, SIDE 1.

Pale1458, ONE thing is standing out from those first, 144 exercise pages, f.ex. 42 and 43, and also this one :

Page 45 of 201 :
FAA: FAA dropping off.
DDO: FAA, are you still there?
FAA: Dropping off. I cannot understand what you're saying.
DDO: Roger. Stand by. We're going to try and contact you on a separate line. Make sure we get good data on it.
FAA: Okay.
SECDEF: Hello.
DDO: Calling Station, this is DDO.
SECDEF: This is Rumsfeld. (Etcetera).

And then it stands also out from the second part, the real hijacks, that the CIVILIAN planes information from the FAA its DIRECT-phone connections to that MILITARY orientated DDO Conference were most of the crucial times absent or very bad (example : page 42, 43 and 45 of 201), according to those military transcript editors, that were later rewriting the whole thing. It was performed through a secondary line in the DDO center, so the FAA was not DIRECTLY part of that military conference. Which is QUITE ABSURD, if one takes in account that it were hijacked, CIVILIAN planes that attacked the defensive measures of the US military and the US Agencies.

Everybody here, at a Conspiracies forums site, understands of course (I suppose) that distorting the DIRECT radio and telephone conversations between that DDO conference and the FAA main offices (as a direct PARTICIPATING member of that military conference) was of vital importance for the 9/11 planners, that way the military was left mainly clueless in the first critical hour, regarding questions like : how many planes were hijacked, and where these hijacked planes were over time.

That again, is in fact a simple distortion, easily to implement. These planning people prefer the simplest solutions...and in these cases of organizing huge false flag on own soil operations, they are sadly enough, spine chillingly right : "Keep IT simple, Stupid.! "

That's why it's curious that there is no conformation firm mentioned for the real hijacks part. Only that strange remark at page 145 : "COORDINATION : None."

And stranger even, these above that remark placed remarks at the same page :

• The original transcription was incomplete. The pages between the red and green flags (pp169-192) reflect the previously non-transcribed portion.

• The entire transcription was redone by USD(I) staff in conjunction with Joint Staff because there were many inaccuracies in the original.

At least that FOIA releasing bureau should have given the ORIGINAL transcripts too.! So the historians could have compared them to this redone piece.

They also left out a number of strategically important and thus secret sentences and abbreviations, based on E.O. 13526, section 1.4(a)(g), which is of course understandable, and to me it looks as if they did not remove any really important pieces regarding ev. tampering with the later to be performed military historical research.

Page 162 of 201 of the SCRIBD file holds this :
""CINC NORAD has declared an assessment of "concern" for the air events does hold. I say again, an assessment of "concern" does hold for the air events. NORAD complete.""
There is however also a DDO file page 162 that holds this :
""the continental NORAD region cannot verify any attack or hostile intent towards the President's ranch. They have no indication of an attack taking place.
No radar indication of a contact in that area.""


posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:02 AM
More reply to: pinch1435

This remark by you, pinch1435, leaves out the quintessense of my argumentation regarding the last 5 seconds of AA 77 its flight path :

pinch1435 : it doesn't matter if the plane is at 400 knots at 1000 feet or 30,000 feet, the wings will be loaded the same in level flight.

Yup, you only forget to mention : "at 400kts at 1000 feet or 30,000 feet, the wings will be loaded the same, nearly to the max of their standard flexing, in level flight."
Because 400 kts is 740.8 kmh, while the normal cruising speed at 10 km high up is around 825 kmh, which is 445.5 kts.

You slipped in the word "level", while I am clearly argueing in all my latests posts, a pull up near light pole number one, from a shallow dive from over the Annex hill side, into a level flight path at Route 27, at a pole-cut height of half its length of 40 feet (from base to lamp head), at which moment there will be an increased load on the wings and wing tips, in that maximum dense air, at that CRAZY speed of 825 kmh, shown in that phony DFDR, when that plane is pulled UP for even a few degrees.

Phony DFDR, since we still have all these 25 sincere North of CITGO flight path witnesses, which make that official DFDR a fairy tale.
Don't try to tip toe yourself out of that main 9/11, anti-official NoC witnesses story, regarding the Pentagon attack NoC arguments made by me.

Try for example to subpoena those two Pentagon Police Force sergeants who both, up to the day they got their gag orders, stood by their 2006 interview that they 100 % sure, saw that plane fly at 100 feet away and about 50 to 100 feet high at the north side of the northern roof of that CITGO gas station.
And thus not south of that gas station, as the phony last "4 to 6 seconds of recovered by Legge & Stutt data" of that thus doctered DFDR clearly shows.
That NoC slight turn around the north side of that gas station curiously enough, happened in exactly those last 4 to 6 seconds of AA 77 its flight path, from its last 3.5 seconds on.

posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:05 AM
A reply to: MrBig2430

MrBig2430,[/url] you also slip in "in level flight" while I am reasoning about a dive maneuver and leveling out of it near light pole one, and you forget to also mention the difference in flex at 400 kts compared to the usual landing speeds at angles, near grounds altitudes. At that huge speed of 825 kmh it's at its max flex in a straight flight path, diving and angled or not. See the B-787 wing flex picture above.
And G-forces are stronger at 825 kmh during the moments a plane is trying to level off from out of a shallow dive, to switch from a dive to flying along the top soil of that lawn, while starting to produce a perfectly leveled above that lawn, whirling smoke cloud coming out of that right jet engine.

Two -critical to the OS- questions only, for both of you :
1. Do you think that the officially shown plane, in that officially endorsed DoD security boot video, leveled off from a 400+ kts, 800+ kmh STRAIGHT dive down, to a point just before half way up light pole 1 and 2 beside Route 27 and its overpass bridge over Columbia Pike.?

2. Or do you think that plane dove down to the impact point at the first floor level concrete slab at column 14 in the west wall of the Pentagon in ONE straight line, so with no KINKS when leveling off, in its flight path.?

posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:10 AM
Both questions 1.and 2. their flight paths starting from just a few meters above the center part of the roof of the former Navy Annex complex its Wing 8.

Listen and view the video and audio taped eyewitness accounts of Terry Morin (just beside the Annex's Wings 4 and 5) and Albert Hemphill who stood at the windows in one of the top Annex's Wing 8 floors its far left northern conference rooms (while in a early conference), who said he saw the plane dive from just over the roof coming over his right shoulder and who guessed it took the plane about a whopping 10 seconds until impact from the moment he saw it.

That is too long, we may safely assume that, since a B-757-200 would drop like a brick while trying to fly in its clean configuration (no landing flaps out) at such a low speed (50 m/s), over that known distance of about 500 meters (Annex Wing 8th roof to impact at west wall's column 14) in his 10 seconds.
But he indicates by mentioning those too long 10 seconds from his memory, that the plane he saw was FOR SURE NOT flying at 825 kmh = 229 m/s, since it THUS would have covered those 500 meters he could see, until impact, in 2,18 seconds .!

Realize that the higher it was above that roof, the steeper the dive must have been to pole number 1. Just draw a straight line from that Annex roof rim to half way up pole number 1, that's at its twenty feet height along its 40 feet total height, in a USGS terrain profile.
Then observe the necessary kink in that flight path, to not end up straight into that lawn's first tens of meters on the other side of Route 27.

And I repeat it again, 5 seconds flight at 825 kmh starts at 1.3 km / 1300 meters / 1422 yards from the impact point. So the NoC turn started around 3.5 seconds before impact, if it really flew at that crazy speed.
Which crazy speed the 25 NoC witnesses all deny with their early statements about the smooth +/- 30 to 35 degrees angle they all reported as the (standard btw) bank angle they all saw their 9/11 Pentagon attack plane fly in.

posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:19 AM
A few on-sight and site photo impressions, so you can make out yourselves, the angle from the 8th Annex Wing roof to halfway up light pole number one on the west side of Route 27 (aka : Washington Boulevard), and see the discrepancies in the official story and its subsequent, officially recovered, DFDR story.

The yellow kinked line its flight path is flown at 825 kmh, according to the DFDR.
The black flight path is flown in a standard 30 to 35 degree bank, at a much lower, 2/3 less speed, according to twenty five 9/11 eyewitnesses :

Plane flown parallel to the lawn, between 40 to 42 degrees to the wall, according to some early years Purdue University research :

Pole 1 and pole 3 and 4 positions. Picture is distorted by use of a fisheye camera lens :

Pole 3 dimensions as it was laying cut about in half, in two pieces :

Pole 4 its distorted pole-cut dimensions, see for right length the next picture :

Pictures of all 5 cut poles positions, shot shortly after impact :

Dimensions of pole 1 (40 ft total standard VDOT length), and the halfway up position on it, where it was allegedly cut :

Which means that the B 757-200 with its maximum flexed-up wing tips, must have flown this low (as shown with my fat orange lines), with its flexed-up right wing-tip, cutting pole 1 half way up (17-23 ft agl = above ground level), while flying in between pole 1 and pole 2 (my drawn in orange plane wings are shown distorted, since it flew from the left side to the right side of this distorted photo, in a 42 angle towards the west wall of the Pentagon).
The originally drawn in by an OS and DFDR truster, greenish plane is shown without even any (max.) wing flexing in that drawn-in position, where it had to level off (increased G-forces on the already maximum flexed up wings) to start flying parallel over the lawn, and to be able to produce that parallel smoke cloud trailing the right jet engine, in that DoD security camera video (my last 2 pictures).
The fuselage its weight thus MUST hang in between both max. flexed-up wings, at least 3 meters lower :

Google Earth picture, with Albert Hemphill's view from the conference room's windows. Note the last 4ft height value and compare it to the first 183ft height value derived from the yellow line depicting a horizontal 52 degree to the wall, DFDR flight path, then calculate the official dive angle according to the DFDR by using the right distance from between Annex Wings 5 and 6, and the impact point at column 14 on the Pentagon west wall.
Its a long triangle with one 90 degrees corner between Navy Annex Wings 5 and 6, and one wider corner angle straight above it in the air at 179 feet up, and one shallow angle with the ground at the 4 feet above ground impact point, which angle you must now try to calculate.
That's one short vertical-up side of 179 feet high, one DFDR 4 feet/1.22 meter point above ground level at impact, one long side which you can measure with Google Earth 9/11 its historical pages, and one resulting, angled up long side, from impact to that 179 feet up in the air triangle corner point. ( Pythagoras his a>2 + b>2 = c>2)
Now look at my above cut pole one picture, the 57ft pin position and the 4ft pin position and try to fit that in your constructed triangle. See also my second picture below this one it's text, the one with the Air Force 9/11 monument behind the last Annex roof :

Eight south of CITGO gas station eyewitnesses their positions on 9/11/2001 :

View from a window at the east side of the Sheraton Hotel, over all eight Navy Annex Wings their roofs, through the later erected Air Force its National 9/11 Monument, that Terry Morin said he saw the B-757-200 flew "through".
And a clear view at the west wall of the Pentagon, with its impacted window at the column 14 position at the second floor level floor slab, which is btw NOT at a 4 feet/1.22 meter high position. Its about 2 meter higher.
A few windows further down, to the left of that stretched out small white spot on its roof, as seen in this below photo, 10 top windows to the left of that monument's left side, about 17 windows to the left, on the second floor row of windows.
I really can't see the possibility for a straight downwards flight path according to the official story, that also cuts all 5 light poles in half, not to be seen in this photo, which means that the plane must have flown considerably higher than the position-angle of this photographer, which increases the plane's dive angle even more, and makes it even more unreal and difficult for a plane flying at 825 kmh, to level off from that dive angle, near that light pole number one, which stood at the right side of the overpass bridge in Route 27 :

Just for the record, shown below, Jack White's obsessions with "photo-shopped" pictures.
It was not photo-shopped, just different positions with different lighting.
And it were not the engine nacelles that hit and gauged the roof of that trailer, but those aileron rails under those wings, to the right of the right jet engine, or its right wing tip :

This is my try to reconstruct the right angle of impact in this distorted photo, while we also do not know exactly the generator trailer its original position and its dimensions, along that fence. All we know that the trailer was pushed aside and around a bit, so this effort is indecisive, since it could be a DFDR flight path angle of 52 degrees, or a 62 degrees NoC flight path angle :

My 80 degrees red line is the expected maximum angle of attack from a North of CITGO gas station flight path, while the 42 degrees yellow line is the official angle of attack :

An effort by me to find out if a NoC attack plane its right wing tip could make that gouge in the roof of that generator trailer :

Another depiction of a NoC flight path angle, now from above the heliport concrete, with nine NoC witness positions drawn in by me.
R.R. is Roosevelt Robberts, the alleged "fly-over" witness embraced by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and its owner Rob Balsamo.
He certainly was not a fly-over witness, these Pf911Truth members are wrong.
They interpreted his somewhat garbled reporting, while being interviewed by CIT by hand-phone, while he was driving in his car, of his sighting of the minute later appearing C-130, as a fly-over of the already impacted B-757, which Roosevelt could not see at all on 9/11, only its smoke, since he stood at the South Parking loading dock at the southern wall, when he saw that B-757-200 come diving down from over the Annex roofs :

My red line, dive angle proposal beside that VDOT radio mast, and Pf911Truth their yellow line its dive angle proposal over it (to avoid hitting the VDOT radio mast top).
That plane flew over the center of the roofs of the Annex Wings buildings, according to Terry Morin and Albert Hemphill, and not over Columbia Pike, as many OS trusters at that time proposed :

posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:26 AM
The smoke parallel to the lawn, see its parallel to the lawn smoke trail in these two screenshots in one of the two in 2006, (this one the obstructed by two camera boxes), officially FOIA released DoD videos. You see the tail of a plane just right of the top of the rightmost camera box. Many believe this video is however doctored with, and that "plane" is inserted later on, and thus its smoke trail too. I am undecided yet, if it are two genuine videos. They had many years to fix them, of course, before they were forced by FOIA requests, to release these two security gate videos :

By the way, I took the plane length 2 times too long in this above and below calculation shot.! Its nose cone in fact, just surpasses the left side of that camera box.!


posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:42 AM
A reply to: pale5218

As far as I can see in that PEOC / DOD file at SCRIBD (see my above post to pinch for the link again), the Weapons Freeze remark was made when UAL 93 was on its way to Washington, according to all the remarks that can be time pinned, before that remark was made.
I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Thus, Cheney re-stated to that young man his Weapons Freeze order regarding AAL77, in my opinion. Which, I repeat, I would have done too, you're not going to shoot down a huge airliner above densely populated city areas.

I have also read in totally other reviews and reports that the PEOC secure room under the White House had some military aids stationed there at all times and also on 9/11, and Secret Service agents and aids too, and these were talking together and had their own secure line to NORAD, that seemed to had tracked AAL 77 on their main radars already considerably earlier than you make up from your reading of your sources. At that time, they just called it "A plane" without transponder, on a course to DC.

posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 01:01 AM
A reply to: Pilgrum

Stutt & Legge and Farmer their discoveries of those last 4 to 6 seconds of increasingly garbled up DFDR data, were NEVER acknowledged by any OFFICIAL source, like the NTSB, FAA, FBI, etcetera.
The official sources have their last positional data point beside the Sheraton Hotel, about 1 kilometer / 1000 meters / 1050 yards from impact.
And the NoC maneuver was only started about 300 meters further down the road, Columbia Pike.

Of course the aircraft ID and fleet ID must have been placed somewhere in that DFDR, I checked in the OFFICIALLY released huge portion, it is not to be found. It is not logical, how else do these DFDR decoders know if they have the right aircraft its DFDR remains at their bench.?

And this remark makes me even more wary of those 4 to 6 seconds of further data found by those three men :

It has been decoded as aircraft 35, fleet 1, but cannot be further interpreted without access to American Airlines records.

Again, Warren Stutt (or Farmer, one of them) was for many decades an Australian Secret Service agent. You never really quit these agencies. They will recruit you again, when they need you.
And this is clearly a western alliance false flag operation, too many people from abroad seem to be part of the still ongoing 9/11 disaster compartmentalization and neutralization team.
That makes me wary even more.

posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 02:11 AM
A reply to: pale5218

A second listen to this presentation:

20:00 - There were indeed areas in 2001, called “radar holes” and they were radar deficiencies, and could have played a role in the 9/11 planners plan. There were areas of radar coverage in 2001 that had not 100% reliability to primary radar, this was throughout the entire US. And the first doubters of the official stories cam up with a map of those radar holes, and what they found out was, that all 9/11 hijacked flights were crossing their paths either inside one of these radar holes, or near military airfields, so the circumstances were certainly there to swap planes. If I remember right, it happened also when the planes went lower, while flying near those radar spots and airfields there.
The early researchers here or those reading this, will hopefully have saved that radar holes map drawing, please post them here.
I had, but I have had several HD fries over these 16 years.


He mentions that the hijackers made a 180 degree turn and it was completed in a standard rate of turn. His contention is the hijackers had no reason to use the standard rate of turn but if the course reversal was entered into the active autopilot, this is how it would occur.

There is your problem with that : the hijackers (or whoever else) turned all three autopilot functions OFF, 10 minutes before impact, and they never turned them on again, according to that DFDR....

At 32:43

he discusses how the FDR analysis showed these hijack pilots never touched the rudder pedals so they couldn’t have had feet. It’s part of his support that this FDR was fabricated. I’m not a pilot but again, this could be done using autopilot, no need for feet. I’ll leave this to a pilot to confirm but this is not surprising at all.

Again, autopilot functions were ALL turned OFF for the last 10 minutes of flight, and by the way also during a few instances in the first part of the hijacking, you can check that in the NTSB flight of AAL77 recreation video, these are those three blocks under the flight window.

28:40 The aircraft is in WV and comes back up on radar again- incorrect

28:50 ATC assigned AAL77 to that target, at 29:21 he re-iterates this target was assigned AAL77 -incorrect

29:54 He states this everybody declares this flight was AAL77 – incorrect

How did you conclude three times incorrect.?

He adds that a controller (O’brien) was watching this on her screen, somewhat disingenuous, she did observe it but it wasn’t as if she was sitting there tracking it.

30:12 He adds that it’s now on radar so they can track the speed, Obrien considers this a fighter type aircraft because of the speed. It wasn’t tagged; there was no speed readout until the DCA controller tagged it with “LOOK”. In all fairness, looking at the primary target and update on radar, a controller can get a general idea of the speed.

30:42 An ATC considers it a military because of its maneuverability. There was no speed readout, there was no turn to indicate this was maneuverable, she might have considered it a fighter because of the estimate on speed, just some embellishment in his story by stating it this way.

We have to include the knowledge at the ATC desks all over the eastern part of the country, that airliners were hijacked and two of them, without transponders on, had been flown into the two WTC towers already, so a blip with no transponder on on their screen, was for sure a serious threat.
Miss O'Brien did say in a few interviews that she said to colleagues that it looked like a military plane, considering the smoothness of that downward turn.

Pilots for 9/11Truth have persisted that the plane flew in that downward turn at 500 MPH, and made videos where this was shown to be impossible. I am not sure at the moment, if they included the AP-Off knowledge.
I confronted them, telling them that the RADES data showed that the plane was flying inside that turn with much lower airspeeds than they assumed, and only after coming out of the turn, its then they pushed the throttles up to 500 MPH.
With those radar recorded lower speeds, it was a standard turn for a plane WITH AUTOPILOT functions ON....but those were OFF for 7 minutes already, according to that recovered DFDR.
And then, even seasoned 10.000+ hrs experienced airliner pilots trying to recreate that non-AP turn in an official flight simulator, could not get it right the first time, nor the second times, at those RADES-recorded, lower than 500 MPH speeds.

31:30 The aircraft is barreling into Class B airspace, his contention is this flight approaching Class B airspace should cause alarm to controllers. This is an incorrect assumption also because there is no altitude readout; this target could have been well above the Class B airspace. This would be a normal and routine observation, a primary target, especially with that estimated speed would be considered a high altitude flight.

32:12 The controller in Boston is coordinating with the military fighters to have them go take a look at the very least. “They have been watching it now for quite a long time”. This is absolutely incorrect

See my former remarks again about the high alert on non-transponder blips.
Again, why is this incorrect.? If you base this on audio tapes, I repeat my remark about the NORAD main radars, which seem to have been tracking non transponder planes already quite some time, and transferring that knowledge to the SS and Military aids in the PEOC.

He has embellished on number of points to bolster his story but more important, he stated a number of inaccuracies that were not just misspeaking; they were flat out incorrect facts.
I have to take this presentation from him and assess that his credibility is questionable. From what I hear him discuss about the flight activity, I can’t accept his DFDR analysis without support from somewhere else.

He has second pilot seat experience on airliners, and light aircraft too.
But to me too, I would have liked to see that he had concentrated on his field of DFDR-expertise, instead of mixing that with a few misconstrues at that time fed to him by Balsamo and friends, while he was still a member there.
He is not anymore, like so many others too. It's not helping too, that he sided now with some other, not so precise 9/11 researchers.

Here is another, one hour interview with him, now per telephone from 2011, with much better audio quality :

posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 02:14 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

Nice manifesto. Yes sarcasm.

Long post to highlight your ramblings and push shorter and more reasonable posts into the background.

Long techno babbling to create a false sense of understanding that in reality is pointless and disjointed.

Does you ramblings have a point?

State proof the light poles were cut cleanly in half!

Yes, the jet made it all the way to the pentagon to crash. Thanks for pointing out reasons why the jet crashed into the pentagon.

Here are works citing way a large jet crashed into the pentagon.

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate

Downed Light Poles: Many witnesses saw the plane hit light poles. In all, five light poles were torn from their bases and broken into pieces. Pole pieces had considerable curvature as if hit by a blunt force at high speed, such as the moving wing of a plane.

Wonder why you can't properly convey the facts concerning the light poles?

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

The recent complete decoding of the FDR file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions. It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports.

The Pentagon Event:
The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted

Such a confluence of physical, eyewitness and other evidence provides an overwhelming case for a large plane, most probably a Boeing 757-200 and flight AA 77, impacting and penetrating the Pentagon on 9/11. No other theory has even ventured to explain all this evidence using a missile, bombs etc.

C-130 Crew Saw Pentagon Strike, Official Confirms
October 17, 2001|By TERRY SCANLON and DAVID LERMAN Daily Press

posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 05:56 PM

State proof the light poles were cut cleanly in half!

Only two of them, 1 and 3. You tend to add things which I do not write ( "the" ).
Don't you guys have any grasp on geometry, trigonometry, calculus and logic, and btw, those 4 stars throwers too, when I offer photos with calculations, just a few posts above this one?
Or are you playing intentionally dumb, to force me and others to spend endless hours to rebut your nonsense.? :

Standard VDOT light poles lengths, as placed around the Pentagon was/is 40 feet / 12.2 meters high from top of lamp to base. For the rest of the shown measurements in that photo, you can ask around by your former math and physics teachers, until someone maybe can explain it to you.

Nice mix of lies and propaganda link :

Downed Light Poles: Many witnesses saw the plane hit light poles. In all, five light poles were torn from their bases and broken into pieces. Pole pieces had considerable curvature as if hit by a blunt force at high speed, such as the moving wing of a plane.

Come on, second time I ask you now in this thread :
Come up with, first your hundreds, now many witnesses, who saw light poles cut.
Not one reliable one could be found. Go read what I already earlier on in this thread advised you, why do you always skip these tasks.? This same discussion about the "many" cut pole witnesses has been done and over with at this forum, ten years ago already.

"such as the moving wing of a plane. "
Yup. Or a sample light pole clamped in a huge lathe, and then rotate it 180 degrees at full speed, until it hits a sharp knife-formed piece of steel, fixed 20 feet away on the shop floor.
Or, when I want a nice bend first, and then cut a clamped-in pole, fix the sharp knife-formed piece of steel 20 feet high up above the huge lathe and use half of that lathe's force /speed.
If I want to cut light poles like in some of the pictures can be seen, then I use a fire fighters and police piece of emergency-cutter equipment, they use to cut out stuck drivers after a car accident.

posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 05:58 PM
It was a huge false flag operation, financed by entities with huge black money capital.
Fixing those five light poles would cost near to nothing, and depositing them in the early dark hours of 9/11/2001 is child play. Only a few, even just only two dedicated men, were needed for that whole 5 cut light poles operation, no masses of in-the-know-conspirators needed at all.

Btw, the position of cut light pole 2 does not ring alarm bells with you.?
Backwards from the incoming left wing flight path.
It also, just as pole 1, stood just beside the western side of Route 27, but it fell BACK to the west, on the northern slope-side of the Route 27 its overpass bridge over Columbia Pike.
Don't you think if that pole 2 got hit by a wing tip at a speed of 825 KMH, that parts of it or that whole pole would end up on Route 27, or even far further east.?
But, no, it lays nicely HIDDEN under and beside a few trees on the western bank of Route 27, and on the northern bank of that overpass bridge, as if it is hit by a wing coming FROM the Pentagon instead of going TO it.
Look closely at the far left bottom corner of this picture, and read the text "pole 2" :

Wonder why you can't properly convey the facts concerning the light poles?

I surely wonder why YOU can't even do basic math when offered extensive proof of the height where pole 1 was cut in half, in already offered twice, photos of it.

posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 05:59 PM
On to that PDF from Legge & Stutt.
Frank Legge has passed away on October 20th 2016 :

It's sadly enough, full of minor and major flaws.
Just look at their fig. 6 its True Altitude dark green line.! At the 5 secs position it shows still a height of 600 feet.! AT a CRAZY speed of 825 KMH.! And have a look at fig 13 too.
That's a virtual dive angle on that graph of 30 degrees. Which of course must be recalculated by using true distances combined with those seconds positions.
Why did those two men not do that in any of their other diagrams, only seconds on the x-axis, not meters, feet or miles or km, to see the true dive angles.?
Imagine the G-forces involved to get that plane level to that lawn, within the last few that crazy speed, in that dense air.

Their fig 14 is the one I have used many times to show you, if this DFDR nonsense was all true, that then a human pilot could have never reacted that fast on ground effects at that crazy speed, as is shown in their diagram.

Enough said.
I repeat it once more : their final 4 to 6 seconds DFDR decoding was NOT embraced by ANY American Institute, like there are the FBI, the NTSB, the FAA, the 9/11Commission, NIST, the CIA, the NSA, etc.

And boy, would THEY like to do that, lots of their problems with explaining away the many faults in the official stories regarding the Pentagon attack, SOLVED.!
BUT, they DID NOT embrace this online literature.!

Do you OS trusters not even wonder for one small second, WHY.?
Because it is all uncertain info, based solely on uncertain data.

F.ex., the right jet engine hitting and displacing that generator trailer... it went however clearly through the corner of that fence, while that trailer's edge stood at least 5 meters back from that corner, as shown in a photo from the days before. The gauge on top of that trailer could have been carved by an aileron guidance rail under the right wing tip. Or the right wing tip itself. Or just carved in there earlier on, in the night before or so. Everything is possible in this nefarious attack, proved by the sole existence of those 25 NoC flight path eye witnesses.

You guys never dare anymore to touch that NoC subject again, because you can't talk those two Pentagon Police men and that ceiling flash in the CITGO security video, out of your too creative OS imaginations. Nor those 4 National Cemetery workers, nor Penny Elgas and Christine Peterson, who both stood under the plane when it crossed Route 27, while they also say they stood in front of the helipad. And so on.

Their fig 8 : Quite a misconception.
Pole 1 was cut much lower, half way up, not at the top as they show.
Pole 3 was also cut much lower, see for yourselves in my above photos.
And they wisely did not include the flight path angle further back from their pole 1 at 1000 feet / 305 meters point, namely from there to the top of Wing 8 of the Annex its roof.
You can get a reliable terrain impression from the USGS for that missing piece of information.

posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 06:03 PM
There are many more inconsistencies in this 2011 publication, which texts are based solely on some additional nefarious files describing the last 4 seconds, as included in the file they got by FOIA request.
They seem to have got "help" to decode them, by email from another, not mentioned source.
(I suppose that was Mr Farmer) Warren Stutt has acknowledged online, that he is by no means a professional DFDR decoder.
The consensus at this 2017 moment is under all researchers, closely involved, that these FOIA received DFDR data are in their totality highly suspect, and can not be relied upon in any further serious 9/11 discussions :

The data was received in two forms, following a number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. One form could not be understood by inspection and the other, a readable comma-separated values (CSV) file, had some columns of data missing, a critical omission being radio height. After considerable difficulty, assistance in interpreting the coded file was received and the result came into public hands.

Ref.11 : It is not our position that we have proved the data file authentic.
It is of course impossible to do so.

The rest of that reference 11 is their opinion.

Just read the many links you get when you fill in, in a Duckduckgo search window, the terms "" Rebuttal Legge & Stutt "".

posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 06:05 PM
This is one link of that search, by me in 2015 :

Only an Australian computer expert, Warren Stutt, without any former expertise in decoding DFDR's, says he decoded those last seconds. And he concluded that they indicated a further SoC flight path.
Typical possible example of a psyop (psychological operation), let an outsider take the blame if that agency-operation does not succeed. By the way, Warren Stutt seems to have served in an Australian Secret Service agency before he wrote his thesis on AA77's last DFDR seconds. Said one Aussie poster here.

There's much more rebuttals to find in that Duckduckgo search there, plus re-rebuttals by Stutt & Legge.
Have fun with it, I see it as a waste of time.

I advice to read this reference post too, and note the Auto Pilot-off remarks :
and this post about all the still moving traffic in the first News video, just 4 minutes after impact already, filmed by a security cam somewhere east of the west wall, while the two DoD photographers that came also early on the scene show only pictures with halted cars in the HOV lanes, and the other news video, 8 minutes later with the same still moving traffic :

I would read that whole page 1 if you are a genuinely interested 9/11 official stories doubter, and even more so, if you are an OS truster.
It's full of never before seen evidence of very strange events on Route 27, surrounding this nonlogical for terrorists, Pentagon attack.

Your last 2 links seem to introduce again doubt about my Pentagon take on that event.
Again, as said multiple times before by me in the past 16 years, a B757-200 flew into the Pentagon. At a NoC flight path.

top topics

<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in