A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

A reply to: neutronflux

I'll keep it short :

You begin to sound like a broken record, broken by a still struggling with basic education, stubborn person.

a reply to: LaBTop

People ask you very specific questions that you ignore and post long repetitive posts.

At least I am to the point and effient. You are willfully dodgy, and base your strategy on long posts of techno babble. You are more like a salesperson than a conveyor of truth.

Again? Light poles cut in half?

Light poles 40 ft when a cited source published 36ft?

originally posted by: LaBTop

So, where did this first mentioning of a THIRD hijacked plane came in reality from.? That must have been a MAIN RADAR SITE who tracked non-transponders.! Or a FAA source, from radio or telephone contact.
Thus, nobody at the 9/11Commission or NIST or whatever else incompetent US 9/11 investigating institution asked for that main radar site or the origin of that THIRD plane report, at any time in the last 16 years.? O'Reilly.?

There were conference calls as well as information being passed between all the FAA facilities including the FAA Command Center in Herndon VA. The information on AAL11 when it turned the transponder off was at high altitude, 29,000 ft (FL290) and as they tracked the primary target it past wet of JFK/NYC.

When AAL11 hit the WTC, there wasn't the connection to this flight because the controllers were still assuming that the flight was at the last known altitude of FL290. They didn't realize this first impact was AAL11 and so based on the direction of flight, it was assumed the flight was southbound at FL290, heading towards DC.

Boston ARTCC was on these calls and listened to conversations about AAL11 not being the impact aircraft, still heading southbound at FL290. The confusion that was occurring with these flights led to speculation that AAL11 was heading torward DC and relayed as such. This information is all in the audio tapes.

Neads Master Sergeant Maureen Dooley explains in a interview that they thought that they had two headed in that direction (Washington).
Narrator : Just 1 minute later, at 9:35, more news comes in about one of the two missing planes, believed to be over Washington. The phantom American 11.
Boston ATC : Our latest report, the aircraft VFR six miles southeast of the White House. (32:06)
LT :Report FROM WHOM.?
NEADS : Six miles southeast of the White House.? (Yes) You don't know who he is.?
Boston ATC : Nothing, nothing. We're in Boston so I have no clue.

The reports of AAL11 still being airborne has not been corrected. AAL77 was the other aircraft they were getting reports on because it went missing in Indy ARTCC.

AAl77 was not observed again on radar until in IAD airspace.

What I hear a lot, and see no response on, is mentioning the actual new hijack reports they get in. But they never mention from WHOM they get these reports, so the other party can quickly check on the validity of that source. That seems a serious communication disaster.

There is no doubt that there was a real lack of communication and informational gathering/dissemination. We can sit here in hindsight and say whatever we want about what should have been done, what shouldn't have been done...whatever. The FAA was not prepared for an event of this magnitude and as you play the audio tapes, it's very apparent that there was misleading information but none of it was by design. It was the fact of the personnel trying to understand what was occurring.

a reply to: pale5218

If the light poles were knocked over at the base, your calculations are useless.

Unless you show how all your calculations compensate for differences in height due to terrain, they are meaningless. Made using a reference hieght above sea level for example.

A reply to: neutronflux

-- use long posts to push criticisms into the background, which are the tactics of the "establishment".--

Let's get that out of the way, once and for all.
The real tactics of the establishment are numbing you down to a level where you get extremely nervous if you have to comprehend more than a few short lines of text. It's the famous 3 minutes attention span borderline, honed in your unconscious mind by clever advertising tactics, already used on you for many decenniums via your TV commercials and TV series.

Your bad worded criticism, is based on minimal education, as shown in your above posts. You have no clue at all what the quintessence of my Larson picture correction is based on, and you probably still don't get it.

I try to offer as much information as possible in my posts, so an educated opponent doesn't have to spend hours to scavenge the Internet to find links that less cooperative posters do not include.

See, you get nervous again :
This is a post by pale5218, not by me, and I was right, you still don't get it.

A reply to: pale5218

If the light poles were knocked over at the base, your calculations are useless.

Unless you show how all your calculations compensate for differences in height due to terrain, they are meaningless. Made using a reference hieght above sea level for example.

It's getting into obsession land, it seems.

Originally posted by: neutronflux
A reply to: LaBTop

People ask you very specific questions that you ignore and post long repetitive posts.

At least I am to the point and effient. You are willfully dodgy, and base your strategy on long posts of techno babble. You are more like a salesperson than a conveyor of truth.

Again? Light poles cut in half?

Light poles 40 ft when a cited source published 36ft?

GET it, will you.?. Your cited source is dead WRONG. PERIOD.
It's probably Stutt...or another one that doesn't go the extra mileage, to get all details right.
Could you step aside for a few hours, so I can get into pale5218 his posts.?

.

I'll give it a last try to get it delivered :

The cuts in the 5 light poles are a snapshot of the POSITION of the proposed attack plane its two wing tips when it cut each of those 5 poles. Since a plane's fuselage, flying at 825 KMH hangs on both its flexed up wings at least 3 meter lower than when parked, it will not be in the positions all these OS trusters have placed it during its attack run from pole 1 to column 14.
While taking in account those light pole their total heights from base plate to top of lamp head, being the VDOT standard length of 40 ft.
But that 40 ft height was not really important at all, since we only needed the heights from the base up to the wing tip cut position in each of those 5 poles, as recorded on photo and film.

In fact, that proposed attack flight path for that proposed SoC attack plane was proposed by OS trusters as clearly evidenced by the base-to-cuts lengths. They even constructed sophisticated slightly downwards trajectories from pole 1 to pole 5 and further on to impact at column 14. ......ALL with normal parked wings positions.

They could have spared themselves the effort, since their proposed plane flying at 825 KMH and trying to level off for an as good as parallel to the lawn last track, with thus also at least 3 meter flexed-up wings, would have impacted the overpass bridge and the trees at both sides, as evidenced by the established min. and max. cut-heights in pole-1 in the Adam Larson picture, plus his, and my, correcting him, drawings.

GOT IT.? Those poles were staged.

Damnit, this forum has deteriorated into a "silent" majority play ground.

A reply to: pale5218

www.abovetopsecret.com...
My first and only excerpt in it, did you miss its text, and its mentioning of an inbound primary target tracking eastbound. At 9:20.?
However, the "no tag" call came at 09:24. That's 14 minutes flight time left.
Why don't you want to accept that from my typed out audio recordings, you hear in that AAL, NEADS and Boston and Washington controllers their official recorded AAL77 audio excerpts in that AAL77 video, made by cjnewson88.?

When AAL11 hit the WTC, there wasn't the connection to this flight because the controllers were still assuming that the flight was at the last known altitude of FL290. They didn't realize this first impact was AAL11 and so based on the direction of flight, it was assumed the flight was southbound at FL290, heading towards DC.

Boston ARTCC was on these calls and listened to conversations about AAL11 not being the impact aircraft, still heading southbound at FL290. The confusion that was occurring with these flights led to speculation that AAL11 was heading toward DC and relayed as such. This information is all in the audio tapes.

Some questions : NEADS nor any FAA controller did not track AAL11 its non-transponder blip and did they not see it disappear when AAL11 hit the North Tower from a NORTHERLY direction at 08:46:26 ?
I agree of course with you, that this was the first hit, and no one was prepared on such an outcome, any former hijacks always ended on some airport, delivering a list of wishes by hijackers, in the past.

But still, did no one wonder when they got this report of a THIRD hijacked plane, why they could not find a blip at FL290 or lower, on a course to Washington.? Because there was no other non-transponder plane after UAL175 hit the South Tower in New York at 09:02:54 .
By the way, that plane made a sharp 180 degrees turn to hit the South Tower from the south.

So they must still have been frantically searching for two blips.? After 09:03.? And up to 09.20, then corrected to 09:24 in my typed out portion of that audio taped AAL77 Controllers video, when they found that blip for an unknown, inbound for the DC area, THIRD plane, they said, with no transponder on.

That's half an hour for experienced military NEADS, NORAD and god knows how many other secret military flight controllers after the second impact in New York made clear that this were terrorist attacks, so the whole US military worldwide went on high alert directly after 09:03.! And certainly on the east coast regions.
And why did they identified it as a THIRD plane.?
And not as that second (UAL175) or first (AAL11) one.?

You said ""AAL77 was not observed again on radar until in IAD airspace.""
I think the ""THIRD plane lost"" remark by that NEADS controller at 9:20 or 9:24, contradicts your statement, or am I dead wrong.? It implicates that they were in a still confused state of mind about two missing plane blips, but knew already for half an hour about two impacts in Manhattan, and knew now at 9:20 or 9:24 about a THIRD plane with no transponder on, and I assume in that case, its blip can ONLY meant to be describing the later tagged AAL77 that hit the Pentagon.
Or was the AAL air phone excuse used, used by a stewardess or passenger to inform about a hijack.? As far as I know, there were no passengers recorded on AAL77 trying to use their hand phones nor their seat air phones, which btw worked only on a credit card.

The FAA was not prepared for an event of this magnitude and as you play the audio tapes, it's very apparent that there was misleading information but none of it was by design. It was the fact of the personnel trying to understand what was occurring.

I agree wholeheartedly. But I know a bit or two about military main radar operators, and they were much better trained for such sudden events. And when they say at 09:20 or 09:24 :
""an inbound primary target tracking eastbound "" they mean business. They have a BLIP.!
And a rough course within about 1 minute, extrapolating from the multiple blips recorded by them in that past minute. Every 12 seconds a blip, for every one of their full 360 degrees main radar dishes revolutions.

.

a reply to: LaBTop

How is the cited source of 36 foot for the light pole wrong?

It's not about where the jet hit the light pole, its about where the jet hit the light pole in hight to the pentagon. Construction sites and factories define the height of floors and buildings relative to sea level to provide a common reference point.

From what you convey, it's the same talking points that have been greatly researched and debunked in depth for the last 15 years.

You cannot get the simplest of the science right, individuals with PHDs have written articles that a large jet hit the pentagon and verified the flight recorder data, and you rely on tired old talking points. It's not even worth the time to research your ramblings.

It's easy to say it's a conspiracy when you have created your own reality based on innuendo and speculation.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: pale5218

If the light poles were knocked over at the base, your calculations are useless.

Unless you show how all your calculations compensate for differences in height due to terrain, they are meaningless. Made using a reference hieght above sea level for example.

Sorry, directed at wrong person. I apologize.

a reply to: LaBTop

I think you don't like to be challenged and use fluff to push opposing opinions of the page.

a reply to: LaBTop

GOT IT.? Those poles were staged.

I've looked and seen no credible evidence that the light poles were staged.

a reply to: D8Tee

I think there is a conspiracy to plant silly conspiracies to see who will fall into traps of pseudoscience and sensational innuendo.

Easier to create a narrative light poles were planted for notoriety than actually plant light poles. Especially if you know you have a consumer base of conspiracists that will choose faith over evidence and scientific method.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: D8Tee

... a consumer base of conspiracists that will choose faith over evidence and scientific method.

"Faith?" More like irresponsible, uncritical thinking wrapped in a cloak of absurdity with a tinge of clown-car tossed in for flavor.

originally posted by: LaBTop
I'll give it a last try to get it delivered :

The cuts in the 5 light poles are a snapshot of the POSITION of the proposed attack plane its two wing tips when it cut each of those 5 poles. Since a plane's fuselage, flying at 825 KMH hangs on both its flexed up wings at least 3 meter lower than when parked, it will not be in the positions all these OS trusters have placed it during its attack run from pole 1 to column 14.
While taking in account those light pole their total heights from base plate to top of lamp head, being the VDOT standard length of 40 ft.
But that 40 ft height was not really important at all, since we only needed the heights from the base up to the wing tip cut position in each of those 5 poles, as recorded on photo and film.

In fact, that proposed attack flight path for that proposed SoC attack plane was proposed by OS trusters as clearly evidenced by the base-to-cuts lengths. They even constructed sophisticated slightly downwards trajectories from pole 1 to pole 5 and further on to impact at column 14. ......ALL with normal parked wings positions.

They could have spared themselves the effort, since their proposed plane flying at 825 KMH and trying to level off for an as good as parallel to the lawn last track, with thus also at least 3 meter flexed-up wings, would have impacted the overpass bridge and the trees at both sides, as evidenced by the established min. and max. cut-heights in pole-1 in the Adam Larson picture, plus his, and my, correcting him, drawings.

GOT IT.? Those poles were staged.

Damnit, this forum has deteriorated into a "silent" majority play ground.

Ok. So you're basing everything on the wing tips flexing up 3 meters. Correct?

Let's assume that's correct.

Now present evidence that wing tips ONLY were what hit the light poles in the so called "OS". I don't believe that's the case though.

I believe that the "OS" says that the wings hit farther onboard, where wing flex is MUCH less.

This makes your claims and all the measurements you've done inaccurate.

Start over buddy.

a reply to: LaBTop

S&F , looks like all they can do is ridicules you and ignore your evidence as they continue to demonstrate it.

It is a waste of time, some on here do not want to learn anything. The very few here, demonstrate that their emotional "opinions" are the facts, as they grant themselves authority over others, while demanding the OS is the holy grail of truth.

You answered their questions time and time again, and everyone reading these posts can see it.

I do not know what happened at the Pentagon, however the photos and eyewitness accounts do not stand up to real scrutiny to the OS. Missing credibal evidence such as one lousy video could put all of this to rest.

Yet, we are being told by our government nothing! Nothing on any of the 84 confiscated videos? Seriously? Is the FBI really that drunk on their ego's, believing all americans are that stupid? I think so.

a reply to: Informer1958

Yet, we are being told by our government nothing! Nothing on any of the 84 confiscated videos? Seriously?

Present evidence of 84 confiscated videos please.

Missing credibal evidence such as one lousy video could put all of this to rest.

What if the reality is that definitive video of the impact event does not exist?

a reply to: Informer1958

People have done more than ridicule. People have asked questions glossed over or completely ignored. Pointed out inconsistencies. Pointed out the short comings of Labtop's referenced material and individuals. People have given rational and fact based rebuttals to Labtop. Thanks for being intellectually dishonest once again!

Rational people that have shown and cited from sources a large jet hit the pentagon useing accounts and items from civilian individuals. Not the "official narrative". Another one of your talking points just died.

List what are the lies of the FAA?

Discredit the 100 plus eyewitnesses that attest to a jet hitting the pentagon.

What remains were released to the surviving family members of flight 77's crew and passengers for burial?

Name your theory on what caused the damage to the pentagon on 9/11. Cherry pick five talking points to back up your theory.

If you have no facts to debate, then what is your point?

a reply to: Informer1958

When is the last time you cited a source Mr "that's just your opinion, cite a source?"