It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 53
65
<< 50  51  52    54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Do all witnesses agree on the planes flight path?

Have you looked at numbers of witnesses and categorized them as to where they say the plane was?

How many witnesses say the plane was not on a NoS path?




posted on May, 8 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
This is an interesting thread of 10 pages, started by Jack Tripper = Lytetrip = Craig Ranke, and it shows several cameras present on 9/11, which were all removed (screwed off.! ) that same day by the FBI or people acting as FBI agents :
Details Regarding the Confiscated Security Videos Of Pentagon Attack.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That plane's right wing could have flown at a 61.2 ° angle (not a 60.25 ° angle) to true North.
I checked the angle on the right edge of the picture, which is true North in Google Earth.
It then flew through pole 1 at a bit less than half of its right wing span width, while missing that VDOT camera mast at 34 ft agl, also just missing the next obstacle, the northern corner pole of that huge overhead traffic sign board. Then it just struck and cut pole 2 with its left wing. No cut height photos of pole 2 available to me. Only that vague one of some bended piece of it, laying behind those bushes, in that lytetrip 5 poles picture . Anybody have other pictures of a cut pole 2.?

In fact, that 34 ft agl dark spot on the VDOT camera mast, as shown in lytetrip's above picture, is too high, when compared to Adam's calculation of the 20-23 ft cut-height in pole 1.
It is impossible for that right wing to dip that much, 14 to 11 ft over that short distance of a few meters only.
So, that dent in the camera mast is obsolete for any further arguments.

And D8Tee, we don't have to re-calculate Adam's calculation because of different scales, since he used a scale, comparable to his correct assumption that the straight part of a light pole was 34 feet long, to result in his 20 to 23 ft cut, bottom pole part length.
While I instead, included the 6 feet of bended truss arm to get to a total light pole length of 40 feet from lamp top to bottom break-off base point. But I used also his 34 ft straight length, from base to straight top part.

When you observe the seemingly shorter than Adam Larson's 6.1 to 7.0 m length of that bottom pole part (it seems to be not more than +/- 3.5 m) in this next photo, you want to get the right depth-of-view calculations to scale its length to the other objects seen in this photo, and check them with the other, second photo, that Adam Larson used.
And is that a still standing pole 2 at the very right side of this picture, above the white shirt guy.? What is it, if not pole 2.? :



Adam put in those 2 vert. yellow lines on the concrete divider, so you can see that the vertical depths go from 7 there, to 4 in the distance. Why.? We need horizontal distortion values. His est. cut pole 1 length is 6.1 to 7.0 meter.
By the way, how do we know this is not in fact pole 2, put there later on.?



By the way, I see no rubber burning skid marks AT ALL, behind that taxi its tires.!
A panicked Lloyde England, just nearly speared by that light pole 1, would have hit the brakes with all his panicked and shock-fed strength.

You have to use all optical laws regarding camera lens used, and angle of observation, to be able to measure its correct length. You also have to get the correct dimensions of that white car (what brand and type.? Guessed length +/- 4 meter.? ), to be able to compare lengths of both. The pole and car are as good as in line.
Perhaps we could get the length of the deck-sandstones on that low overpass bridge-wall too. Or any other visible lengths of other horizontal objects in the above first picture.
Like the white line on the road....it looks in Adam's picture, that they are about 7 inches shorter than the Lincoln is wide, about 70 inch thus. His pictured cut pole piece is 5 and 2/3 longer, that's roughly about 396 inches long = +/- 10 m long......pole 1 is 12.2 m high, including 6 ft/1.83 m lamp head truss arm...., so it seems not right, and not fitting Adam's calculations. Let it be, the seemingly much shorter length in the other white car picture by Ingersoll.

And this is a distorted picture of pole 4, see its real much longer length in the next 5 poles picture :



In this picture below, you can try to determine the cut heights from base to cut, for all 5 cut poles.
That's very difficult, since nearly all photos are distorted, because of position and lens usage :




In fact, its a fruitless task to try to determine length from these pictures, as long as we don't have reliable comparison length of other objects in those photos, and then still we don't know the lenses used.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop


This is an interesting thread of 10 pages, started by Jack Tripper = Lytetrip = Craig Ranke, and it shows several cameras present on 9/11, which were all removed (screwed off.! ) that same day by the FBI or people acting as FBI agents :
I've read that thread.
Cameras don't do the recording, removing cameras would be pointless.



Also, the notion that the FBI missed getting that camera after acquiring 85 total videos that they admit to having is B.S.
Same old song and dance. Most of the 85 videos were not even remotely near the pentagon. If they went through all the trouble of staging pre bent light standards, you'd think they would have just made some fake tapes to go along with the story.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by: D8Tee
A reply to: LaBTop

Do all witnesses agree on the planes flight path?
Have you looked at numbers of witnesses and categorized them as to where they say the plane was?
How many witnesses say the plane was not on a NoS path?


All 25 NoC witnesses can be placed under a NoC flight path, at various points under it. Their very early interviews by the Library of Congress folks and the Army History Units indicate in their texts f.ex. that the plane flew just past the Helipad's concrete, where they stood in front of, we even have photos of them and their cars, but that is always neglected, they do not react on those remarks, as if they were not posted at all.
It's for sure an interesting subject for psychology students in their last years.
All other clues have been debated to death, here and at PfT in my only allowed there thread about just that, my additionally found 12 new witnesses on top of their 13 ones. The local dictator there closed my only thread there, because I showed him/them, that their only possible fly-over witness was describing the C-130 flown in a turn to the NW in front of the already burning and smoking impact. See further my signature links. And lots of my posts over the last 12 years here, I was active on other, now defunct forums, before July 2005.

For your last question, you should ask the 2 guys at the CIT forum at PfTruth, they spend lots of time to counter nearly every as fact offered SoC eyewitnesses, they showed us that nearly all of these offered testimonies were either plain old lies, or misinterpretations, or later inserted remarks by too eager, story-polishing journalists. They have phoned or emailed lots of them, and proved nearly all of them to be not SoC witnesses, just plain plane witnesses.

There will always be a few staunch SoC defending witnesses, there are too many patriotic but mislead people, packing the OS crowd.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

We agree Flight 77 hit the pentagon, lets move on.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by: D8Tee
A reply to: LaBTop

I've read that thread.
Cameras don't do the recording, removing cameras would be pointless.

They FIRST removed the recordings, then, to top it off, so they hoped no one would notice afterwards, they screwed the northwestern camera off and took that one too.
So, you don't find that suspicious behavior, from the Edgar Hoover crowd.?



Also, the notion that the FBI missed getting that camera after acquiring 85 total videos that they admit to having is B.S.


You misquoted me, I do not recall ever making that remark. I think those are your own words.


Same old song and dance. Most of the 85 videos were not even remotely near the pentagon. If they went through all the trouble of staging pre bent light standards, you'd think they would have just made some fake tapes to go along with the story.


There you make a logical mistake. You propose that all FBI gents and ladies are rotten to the bone. They are surely not, and that's why you can't suppose that the small number of crooked FBI agents could make fake tapes afterwards. Which is by the way much more difficult than falsifying a DFDR, which is just a piece of digitally recorded 1 and 0's.

It seems very likely that this record sampling was all a panic reaction, after the news came through to the top 9/11 planners, that the damn plane made a little detour around the CITGO.....!
By the way, who says to begin with, that these men were really FBI.? Why not from one of your in abundance present 3 letter agencies, who after they cut out all the for them incriminating material, returned it through their appropriate channels to the FBI HQ.

Where is the Sheraton video recording from that dome camera up there on their lower southeastern roof corner.?

WHERE ARE ALL THE VHS TAPES FROM THE PENTAGON CENTRAL SECURITY ROOM...! Situated at the River Entrance.
They just had to show us the plane on tape, coming right at those three dome cameras on the roof rim just above the impact. And please don't insult our intelligence, those were top notch cameras and VHS recorders for the 2001 era.
I had better ones than that shotty security boot cam video, in 2001, to protect my property, you could read license plates at 100 meter as clear as a newspaper on my then still bulky but very sharp screens, so don't get me started on that crap again.
They couldn't show us those VHS tapes, because then we could see clearly, that that plane did not come in under a 60.25 degree true North angle, but under a more towards a 90 degree angle.

And that's why the utter logical solution, for all these Pentagon attack internet brawls, will never turn up.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by: D8Tee
A reply to: LaBTop

We agree Flight 77 hit the pentagon, lets move on.


And leave all the important meat of the matter alone.? AGAIN...?
Where's your dive angle calculation, your G-force calculation, or rebuttal of my Warren Stutt diagram with that 2.25 G in it.?
Did AAL77 have to have been pulled up, to level for the lawn.?
Is the OS its SoC flight path a viable one, that cuts through all 5 light poles and has no need for leveling off, since in that case, it will have flown into the overpass bridge its railing. And then crashed in the lawn on the other side of the road, Route 27.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
And leave questions like this lay dormant... ?

Combined with that OS DFDR data fed 2.5 G's per last 3.5 seconds, in the last sentences of this post.? :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 8/5/17 by LaBTop because: typos



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Sorry, that quote was from the thread about the cameras that you linked too, i should have used external quotes. Didn't mean to attribute it to you.




WHERE ARE ALL THE VHS TAPES FROM THE PENTAGON CENTRAL SECURITY ROOM...! Situated at the River Entrance.


Have you read the oral history of Steve Pennington with regards to the pentagons video recording system?

Link

edit on 8-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
A reply to: D8Tee


That's a good one, I never read.
As far as I read, these two techies first had allowence to enter that video room the next afternoon, so lots of time for planners to erase or get rid of tapes (sent in f.ex. a Colonel, sent everyone that's in, out, lock the door and do your thing).
They mainly talk about the two security boot video cameras, which were face recognition cameras, which are not meant to record as far and sharp as license plate cameras. So that's cleared, it were shotty cameras in those two boots, which is not new to us.

At page 19/23 the name of a ""Lt. Nesbitt comes up in his Communication Center with all the TV monitors.""
And then that ""Chief Jester ran down and told them to pull up the cameras; they couldn't get some images because cameras had been wiped out. No one asked about that.""

I remember a Colonel or Major running to that Room 1B7 & 1B8, who re-winded tapes that he thought had caught the impact.

At page 20/23 Pennington says that it was a coincidence that these two boot cameras caught the plane and impact, because every camera on that side of the building was disconnected during the construction project.

I really have a hard time believing that. It is the Helipad side, where the President left f.ex. the other day by helicopter. And not one of those vital security dome cameras on the roof above that Helipad side were working all that time, during the years that that renovation took place.?



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 06:38 AM
link   
The officially endorsed flight path depicted by the 60.23 degree true North long red line (degrees from the ASCE report), cuts right through the VDOT camera pole and both traffic board poles. And misses pole 2 completely ...!
And flies far south of the VDOT radio mast.

The 61.2 degree true North shorter red line, depicts a viable flight path that cuts pole 1 and 2, and misses the VDOT camera pole and both traffic board poles,and its virtual extended line goes right through (or over) the VDOT radio mast ...!
Which passing over that radio mast was by NONE of the witnesses experienced or remarked.




The real start of my proposed slightly bended flight path NoC is depicted by me, by that yellow band, as a 50 m above ground wide height area, from ground to the 38 m wide wings.
Because Terry Morin said it flew with its left wing tip over the rims of the 4th and 5th Annex Wings.
And mr Pike (must be Paik) from the garage saw the planes fuselage and right wing through his office window passing over the Columbia Pike at about 50 m high.

DEAFENING SILENCE................as usual.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

No man can argue with an individual that creates their own reality......

Not really, there is no reasoning with you. And ignoring you deprives you of the attention you seek.

Now, what caused the damage at the pentagon? How did the flight crew and passengers of flight 77 end up dead at the pentagon?

And a little quote for you from John D. Wyndham (PhD), Scientists for 9/11 Truth.




www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

Most rank and file members of the 9/11 truth movement take their cues on the Pentagon from well-known speakers, writers, and acknowledged leaders of the movement. The quickest way to end the ongoing damage to the movement’s credibility and bring closure would be for these prominent individuals to publicly repudiate their former endorsements, views, and statements on the Pentagon event and acknowledge the scientific method and its conclusion of large plane impact. In the absence of public repudiations, the damage caused by false Pentagon hypotheses is likely to continue indefinitely, even if those who fueled their spread cease to promote them. Consequently, the surest way to end the debate and enhance the credibility of the movement is for each individual to study, without bias or prejudice, the evidence for themselves.



Keep drinking the kool aid. It's your movement you are killing, not mine.....



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

You believe that flight 77 hit the pentagon.

You do not agree with the official flightpath.

Lets agree to disagree and move on to some other point?



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Are you saying it's not common for eyewitnesses to have conflicting accounts?



edit on 10-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed common



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: D8Tee

Use LOGIC :

if one believes in 25 NoC eyewitnesses and heaps of other proven false official story details, then the official explanation for the Pentagon attack is also for most of its details false, and since we have all these NoC flight path witnesses, those light poles MUST have been staged in advance, since not one sane planner would try to cut and place cut light pole parts on the lawn in brought daylight.

Thus that faking of 5 cut poles must have been done as close to 9/11 as was reasonably safe, in the darkness of the morning hours. I posted three photos with those yellow painted VDOT (Virginia Department Of Transportation) flat bed trailers used to transport poles, parked on peculiar places very near to cut light poles, on the day of 9/11.

They probably opted for such an abundance of PHYSICAL but FAKE evidence, that they could easily smother any opposition after 9/11/2001.
That held for a few years, then the doubt grew exponentially, after 2005 into 2006.


Use logic yourself for a change.

Let's see if I can boil down your thoughts.

1- Fl 77 hit the Pentagon.
2- it was remote controlled
3- it was also hijacked
4- the guv knew beforehand that there was gonna be a false flag and that can lie about anything they want to during the ensuing investigation
5- so they decide that at the Pentagon to fake a bunch of physical evidence that will back a predetermined flight path, rather than let the physical evidence just happen


Is this about right?

If so can you explain just why they would fake physical evidence? I see zero logical reason to do it.

Contrary to your rabid ramblings, planting physical evidence that doesn't match the actual event isn't the way to convince anyone. If anything it raises more suspicions.

Your thoughts are illogical.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Do you understand, that AAL77 its wings would have first mowed off the upper 1/3 top parts of those two trees, at both sides of that overpass bridge, then impacted the overpass railing with for sure its two jet engine nacelles, and quite sure also with its fuselage bottom, when we accept the 17 ft / 5.18 m to 23 ft / 7.01 m cut-height assumption in light pole nr 1, calculated by Adam Larson in his picture of the overpass bridge, with his really wrong, because too long right wing length, and too high positioned right side of an overlay drawing of a B757 ?
And he also had both upper text lines wrong, the wingspan is 38 meters, and not apparently 65.5 meters.
And the distance between the light-poles 1 and 2 is 53 meters, not 42.7 to 44.2 meters.





Because a B757-200 that endures G forces of 0.5 to 2.25 while leveling off in front of pole 1 and 2, will have flexed up wings and wing tips to nearly its maximum possible height of 3 m, but I offered just a mere 50 centimeters more than the normal in rest position of these wing tips of 2.66 m above its belly bottom, when parked in rest on the ground.

Do you understand that the Warren Stutt vertical G's diagram that I posted so many times by now, and that is based on his personal decoding of the last 6 seconds of flight of AAL77 its recovered DFDR, shows an increase of vertical G forces on that plane from 0.5 G to 2.25 G in its last 3.5 seconds, thus in fact we may assume the maximum flex of about 3 meter for the wing tips, which is an assumption closer to reality than 0.5 m.?



Do you understand that the plane was in front of those two first light poles, when G forces from 1.5 G, up to 2.25 G were exerted on that plane's wings, just before it struck that light pole nr 1 with its right wing or wing tip, when you believe in Stutt's decoding.?

Because at 825 KMH the plane was covering 230 m per each second, which means that AAL77 was 1380 meters from impact, when the official DFDR decoding stops..... 6 seconds away from impacting column 14 in the Pentagon's west wall.

And the distance from light pole nr 1 up to the impact point was exactly 318 m, I checked it in my Google Earth pictures. That's 1.38 seconds flight time left for AAL77. What a coincidence, that's exactly at the 2.25 vertical G point in the Warren Stutt diagram.

And the dive angle was even much steeper, if you understand that the only viable flight path is a 61.2 degrees true north one, and not the ASCE Report its 60.25 degrees true North one, which implicates an extended path from impact up to the VDOT radio mast its top, in fact passing right over that quite high mast :



Which means that the data in those last 3.5 seconds of the Stutt decode thus must depict, that AAL77 must have flown in a sort of curved, downward bend flight path towards those first 2 light poles. Which resulted in a lot of G's. Well, 2.25 to be precise, if you back up Warren Stutt's decode.
Since if we imagine a case in which we assume a straight non-bended flight path downwards at 825 KMH, from at least just above that VDOT radio mast, all the way straight down to the impact point, that plane would not have touched one light pole. And certainly not poles 1 and 2.


Here is another picture of the overpass bridge situation, from under a SoC flight path, let your creativity shine on this one. Light poles 1 and 2 are clear to see :



Use this drawing of a B757-200 to try to fit in the above or below picture :



Or one of these :





This is a perpendicular view on that overpass bridge :



This is the real position of pole 1, not where Adam Larson placed it (too near to the two traffic board poles) :



and of pole 2, at the far end of the overpass bridge railing :




posted on May, 11 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: D8Tee

Use LOGIC :

if one believes in 25 NoC eyewitnesses and heaps of other proven false official story details, then the official explanation for the Pentagon attack is also for most of its details false, and since we have all these NoC flight path witnesses, those light poles MUST have been staged in advance, since not one sane planner would try to cut and place cut light pole parts on the lawn in brought daylight.

Thus that faking of 5 cut poles must have been done as close to 9/11 as was reasonably safe, in the darkness of the morning hours. I posted three photos with those yellow painted VDOT (Virginia Department Of Transportation) flat bed trailers used to transport poles, parked on peculiar places very near to cut light poles, on the day of 9/11.

They probably opted for such an abundance of PHYSICAL but FAKE evidence, that they could easily smother any opposition after 9/11/2001.
That held for a few years, then the doubt grew exponentially, after 2005 into 2006.


Use logic yourself for a change.

Let's see if I can boil down your thoughts.

1- Fl 77 hit the Pentagon.
2- it was remote controlled
3- it was also hijacked
4- the guv knew beforehand that there was gonna be a false flag and that can lie about anything they want to during the ensuing investigation
5- so they decide that at the Pentagon to fake a bunch of physical evidence that will back a predetermined flight path, rather than let the physical evidence just happen


Is this about right?

If so can you explain just why they would fake physical evidence? I see zero logical reason to do it.

Contrary to your rabid ramblings, planting physical evidence that doesn't match the actual event isn't the way to convince anyone. If anything it raises more suspicions.

Your thoughts are illogical.


Thats what I get out of his story as well.

No one is going to plant evidence to suggest the plane was flying on a slightly different path, it just doesn't make any sense.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   


Yellow line from VDOT radio mast to impact point is drawn with addition of a terrain height profile, as seen under the aerial picture.
Its right under that only possible and viable flight path for a SoC flying plane that also cuts all 5 light poles.

Its 0 km point is at the bottom of that VDOT radio mast, its 1.04 km further point is the impact point.
There is no straight flight path possible (that lots of OS trusters try to propose for years already), that does cut through those 5 light poles.
Thus a 825 KMH flying plane, in a South of CITGO flying, straight flight path (says the DFDR), must have performed during its last 1.04 KM = 1040 meters trajectory, quite a downward bended maneuver, to even come somewhere near those 5 light poles.

That is the true terrain profile, the NAVY ANNEX and that VDOT radio mast were situated on top of quite a steep hill ridge, as you can see in several of the Ingersoll pictures, by the way.
So, it had to overcome a 45 m (bottom mast) towards a 11 meter (impact) above sea level height difference, following the ground profile, that's in other words, a 34 m to 0 meter trajectory.

And at 717 meter already, it had to cut light pole 1 with its right wing tip at about 6 meter high. Which means 6 m - (2.66 m = 2/3 cabin height (4 m) + 3 m wing tip flex = ) 5.66 m = 0.34 m clearance for the belly bottom of that plane, but both the plane's jet engines would have impacted the sandstone railing of the Route 27 overpass bridge over Columbia Pike there.

Let's not forget that it had to start over the top of that VDOT radio mast, so you have to add about 30 meter on top of the 45 - 11 m = 34 m high hill top level where that radio mast stood on. That makes for a 61 meter (64-3 m) dive towards impact at 0 m. (+ 3.048 m/10 ft high first floor slab).

I don't think it is even possible to perform such a crazy maneuver at 825 KMH, trying to force that plane 60 meters down over just 717 meters, at that speed. And then level out, parallel over that 323 meter long stretch of grassy lawn.
Plane flew 230 m per second, thus it had roughly 3 seconds to cover those 717 m.

Any 7 series pilot willing to lecture me otherwise.?

I do now very well understand why the official decoders let that DFDR data stream stop just a few meters south from the south facade of the Sheraton Hotel..........

edit on 11/5/17 by LaBTop because: Text forgotten.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Very good analysis showing the light poles that should have been torn down
by the wings of a jet.

I cannot believe that an aluminum skinned jet of any kind could
penetrate the three rings though, just seems to be a stupid assertion,
there is nothing heavy enough in the front of any jet that would
travel through the three rings. A missile could get through, and
cause the fire damage seen on the inside of ring #3. No jet could do
that, and as yet, no one has convinced me that a jet was really
the weapon that hit the Pentagon. It is just another crazy story
the deep state wants people to believe.


a reply to: LaBTop



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThatHappened
Very good analysis showing the light poles that should have been torn down
by the wings of a jet.

I cannot believe that an aluminum skinned jet of any kind could
penetrate the three rings though, just seems to be a stupid assertion,
there is nothing heavy enough in the front of any jet that would
travel through the three rings. A missile could get through, and
cause the fire damage seen on the inside of ring #3. No jet could do
that, and as yet, no one has convinced me that a jet was really
the weapon that hit the Pentagon. It is just another crazy story
the deep state wants people to believe.


a reply to: LaBTop

Yea, like what were the walls of the pentagon constructed out of?
How thick were they?
How could a jet traveling faster than the speed of a bullet go thru them?



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

A jet travels faster than 1700mph , I think you might be wrong




top topics



 
65
<< 50  51  52    54 >>

log in

join