It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 41
62
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 05:08 AM

Again, so many flaws in you logic. Changes in ground elevation. Turbulence causing the jet to bounce a few feet up and down. Was the jet rolling side to side. Can you even prove the wings "cut" the light poles. More than enough margin of error plus or minus two or three feet to make your calculations meaningless.

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 05:27 AM

I can quote a source the pole height was 36 feet. But if you don't account for changes in ground elevation and relative hieght to the pentagon, its all meaningless. It's not about total pole height but relative elevation to the pentagon.

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) January 2011
www.journalof911studies.com...

There do not appear to be any published measurements of the impact points on the poles, the vertical portion of which was 36 feet in height. There is, however, a photograph which suggests that about 5 feet was chopped off the first pole by the impact, showing that the plane’s wing would have been about 31 feet above ground

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 11:47 AM

To before clear on you light pole calculation, the only way it can be accurate is if every hieght is based on a reference height and the wing hieght was static to the reference height.

For your light pole calculations to have meaning:

One, the base of the pentagon and the base of the light pole must have the same relative height to sea level.

Two, the hieght of the jet above the ground must not be jumping up and down. No changing in height relative to the pentagon due to turbulence.

Three, no slow rolling of the jet to one side.

Four, no pitching and rolling of the jet side to side.

Five, the wings must be flexed and static at some fixed position. The wing tips must not be in a constant state of flexing up and down.

All these factors would compound errors that make your analysis easily of +/- 3 feet relative to the base of the pentagon as referenced above sea level. The error could be as much as six foot.
edit on 18-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that.

edit on 18-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:21 PM

I agree with you regarding the Mineta testimony issue. I've never considered that to be particularly meaningful, though it might be.

An example of what I'm talking about is, within the whole 911 story, the absence of an airliner in Pennsylvania as reported by virtually everybody there at the field, in particular the video record and the statements of Coroner Miller. If UA93 was not there in that field, that element of the story renders the whole story invalid.

Or the NIST claim at WTC. It is an impossible claim, that burning office fires caused the damage we observed. That element is false, therefore the entire story as it has been told is false.

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:35 PM

originally posted by: Salander

An example of what I'm talking about is, within the whole 911 story, the absence of an airliner in Pennsylvania as reported by virtually everybody there at the field, in particular the video record and the statements of Coroner Miller. If UA93 was not there in that field, that element of the story renders the whole story invalid.

Your use of quotes out of context and misquotes has been debated in other threads.

Start listing people and their quotes on no crashed jet at Shanksville.

Why do you guys act like it's the first time every time something is brought up?

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 05:22 PM

Or the NIST claim at WTC. It is an impossible claim, that burning office fires caused the damage we observed. That element is false, therefore the entire story as it has been told is false.

Absolutely.

I agree with you, the fact is, if any part of the OS is proven a fraud, then the entire OS is a fraud in my "opinion".
And many parts of the OS have been proven a fraud. We do not have to prove anything anymore, most people that have done their research know 911 was a false flag.

Prove this, prove that, how can? and so on...

These are all distractions to keep us busy answering nonsensical, circular, questions in keeping people from focusing on the real frauds in the OS of 911, this is quite clever, if anyone asked me.

edit on 18-4-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 05:43 PM

That's why the inward bowing that caused WTC collapse was initiated by the contraction of cooling bowed floor trusses. The aggravating items that lead to collapse:
-Insufficient structural fire insulation as documented by studies of the WTC pre 9/11.
-Long floor trusses with no addition reinforced concrete columns to provide additional support midsection.
-The WTC jet impacts cut water mains to fire sprinklers.
-The inability of the NYFD to combat multiple large structure fires.
-around 1000 degrees F, steel loses sixty percent of its strength to resist load and strain.

What is your explanation of WTC collapse?
edit on 18-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 05:51 PM

Prove this, prove that, how can? and so on...

What? Asking for proof upsets you?

Wonder why...

We do not have to prove anything anymore
Why not?

If there is evidence substantiating a claim, why would you not provide it?

Why are you on this forum if it is not to discuss evidence in an effort to determine it's veracity? Can you answer that?
edit on 18-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 05:54 PM
I thought this was about a large jet at the pentagon?

But if you want to talk about truth movement theories like fizzle no flash charges, thermite ceiling tiles, thermite paint, the Jones thermite results that cannot be replicated, buildings built to self destruct, C-4 covered rebar, nuke bombs, holograms and lasers, holograms and missiles, dustification, The WTC 7 court case, stolen sunken and salt water damaged Russian missiles, the smell of cordite. I am game.

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 06:06 PM
Oh, I also forgot....

How did a sophisticated and complex top down detonation system survive jet impacts that cut elevator cables, electrical wiring, and water mains. Fires that ravaged numerous floors, to carryout repeated multiple firsts.

The first ever top down CD by charged implosion twice in one day.

Perfectly carryout the first ever CD implosion of an office building over 50 stories twice in one day. With fire and jet crashed compromised detention systems to boot.

For the thermite crowed. Precectly carryout the first high rise CD implosion with slow and inconsistent burning thermite twice in one day. Detonation systems that would also have been compromised by fire and jet strikes.
edit on 18-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 06:47 PM
Like I said, once one part of the OS is proven a fraud, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

Why believe in anything else that has been told? It works this way in a court of law, juries are instructed to ignore entire testimonies once an witness has been proven a liar.

If the government lied about any part of the OS, then there is something criminal that is been hidden from the public. There is no reason to lie to the public, yet a proven fact now, our government lied to the 911 Commission so much so, that the 911 Commission wanted a criminal investigation done by the Justice department.

Lie to me once, you do not get a second chance to lie to me again. The OS cannot be trusted, because the people in power were already caught lying about it.

edit on 18-4-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 07:46 PM

False in one = false in all is a legal principle, not a scientific or investigative principle.

It’s a principle meant to be applied to a single witness.

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 07:49 PM

So which leader in the truth movement has the truth? Wood? Jones? Gage? AE911TRUTH? Jones? Scientists for 9/11 truth?

What caused the damage at the pentagon?
If you cannot state what hit the pentagon to cause the damage, then you do not have a theory. If you don't have a theory, then there is nothing to prove and debate. If there is nothing to debate, then there is no point. If you have no point, then you are not relevant.

You are not going to get to the truth by your biased views and truth movement theories.

Let's talk about your intellectual dishonesty, and using the official narrative as a straw man argument. I have stated and expanded in numerous threads, that you were involved in, my belief the government is ashamed and embarrassed over 9/11. The government has willfully hid how it was neglectful. The intelligence community was complacent or neglectful in their duties and tried to whitewash thier mistakes. I am open to key intelligence community players may have had warning of 9/11, and took no action. The role political favors, mistakes, and government officials made in pulling strings in immigration so the terrorists could enter and stay in the US.

I am very critical of the US government and don't believe everything that is communicated. However, I am also very critical of the leaders of the truth movement that manipulate for notoriety and personal gain.

Now, please show and quote how I totally buy ever bit of the offical narrative.

By the way, what did cause the damage at the Pentagon?
edit on 18-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 09:00 PM

False in one = false in all is a legal principle, not a scientific or investigative principle.

I disagree.

The fact is, the 911 Commission wanted a criminal investigation into the Pentagon, FAA, and the White House because of the lies they were being told.

You say investigatives principle?

Really, what investigation would that be? Because from my understanding the 911 Commission was blocked every turn they made, and given little to no access to important informations or documents.

So no there was no investigation into 911.

You bring up scientific what scientific investigation are you talking about?

You act as if everything about the OS of 911 has been proven true. Seriously?

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 09:06 PM

originally posted by: Informer1958

False in one = false in all is a legal principle, not a scientific or investigative principle.

I disagree.

The fact is, the 911 Commission wanted a criminal investigation into the Pentagon, FAA, and the White House because of the lies they were being told.

You say investigatives principle?

Really, what investigation would that be? Because from my understanding the 911 Commission was blocked every turn they made, and given little to no access to important informations or documents.

So no there was no investigation into 911.

You bring up scientific what scientific investigation are you talking about?

You act as if everything about the OS of 911 has been proven true. Seriously?

What are the lies that the FAA told?

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 09:36 PM

Push it far enough and he will end up cherry picking what John Farmer said...and will neglect to mention that Mr. Farmer also believes that the 9/11 Commission Report did get the facts.

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:12 PM

I will add, even thought I distrust aspects of the government, the government is still made up of individuals. Individuals that are honest.

Sooooo.

Is it the coroners, lab technicians, police, EMTs, firefighters, air traffic controllers, NIST, Transportation Safet Board, pentagon staff, military personal, Intelligence community, FBI, CIA, joint chief of staffs, the presidential cabinet covering up 9/11?

We talking township, city, county, state, or federal government coverup?

What about debunkers and skeptics, debunking sites, civilian eyewitnesses, surviving family and coworkers, airport staff, clean up crews, heavy equipment operators, insurance agents, construction workers, contractors, security staff, IT personnel, Engineers, the treasury department and their records of pentagon spending, pentagon contractors....... are they, and the third presidential staff, enabling and facilitating the conspiracy still after 15 years?

Are they all government agents. Do you see agents everywhere...... I think I have been accused of being an agent?

You using the government agent card / official narrative to discredit any rational opposing view to your biased logic is not getting you to the truth. Your crutch of seeing government agents everywhere would be a hilarious paranoia if it didn't keep you from finding real truth.
edit on 18-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that

posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:18 AM

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596

Push it far enough and he will end up cherry picking what John Farmer said...and will neglect to mention that Mr. Farmer also believes that the 9/11 Commission Report did get the facts.

I only ask because I would like to know if there was anything to it.

I do know there was misleading information out there at first about who ordered the ground stops and grounding of airplanes. Mineta was part of that but it was corrected soon afterward.

So in sincerity, I would like to know what is considered a lie so it can be examined. I'm not saying I can get all the facts but I can possibly clarify some or even provide validation of the lies.

I do think there were lies, I just don't think we all know what was a lie and what wasn't.

I have resigned myself to not taking sides pro/anti OS because I realized my perspective can be influenced by preconception.

Let me know if you have questions, otherwise I'll wait to see if any posts will provide what is considered lies.

Thanks

posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:41 AM

Yes, there was a concerted effort to hide just how badly we were unprepared that day. It wasn't to hide criminal wrongdoing. It was to hide ineptness. Just one example, in the initial days and weeks afterwards, we were told that President Bush was in constant communication with VP Cheney while he was flying around on Air Force One. And the truth is, the communications between AF1 and ground were horrible. That is why he landed at Barksdale and then again at Offut....so he could have more reliable communications. Both VC-25s were quietly approved for multi-million dollar communication upgrades in the aftermath. And no one, wanted to make public the knowledge that the President of the United States had damned near been out of secure contact with the US military on the exact type of day that Air Force One, was supposedly designed to allow.

posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:51 AM

I don't know about you, but I was listening to interviews with the coroner, reading transcripts of his comments, watching videos of his comments on the day to the TV cameras, since about 2005.

Don't treat me like I just discovered this huge anomaly. If you treat me honestly, I will reciprocate.

There was no airliner in that field, and everybody there knew it. Only those people easily misled and still deluding themselves believe otherwise.

new topics

top topics

62